|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi molbiogirl,
molbiogirl writes: Are you afraid to answer the question or are you unable to answer the question?
I answered the question you asked me. If you have a question ask it. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ICant writes: Here you can find Hawking's definition of singularity. Hawking writes:Defnition of Singularity A spacetime is singular if it is timelike or null geodesically incomplete, but can not be embedded in a larger spacetime. The above is likely correct but to simplify for us layfolk I believe for the purpose of this discussion the singularity would be the point or points when mathematical solutions to space-time equations are undefineable such as T=0 to T=10-43. The physicists are sure to set me straight if mistaken. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2669 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
No. You didn't.
To repeat:
If you haven't any problem with Vedic prophecies which preceded xianity, why do you have problems with Islamic prophecies which followed xianity? You dismissed Muslim prophecies that were "confirmed" by science because ...
I know what Mohammed said. But since he was about 600 years after Jesus and contradicts a lot Jesus taught I don't trust him. You specifically asked for evidence that "other deities" made scientific predictions. Message 44.
I was asking for references or books from the other deities that told us there was wandering stars that would go dark forever. I provided not one but two examples. Answer my question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Buz,
Buzsaw writes: The above is likely correct but to simplify for us layfolk I was just answering a question concerning me not knowing what a singularity was.
Buzsaw writes: T=0 to T=10-43. Buz the amount of time there is, the time it takes for light to travel Planck's length. A Planck's length is the shortest distance that there is. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi molbiogirl,
molbiogirl writes: Answer my question. why do you have problems with Islamic prophecies which followed xianity? There is no such thing as xianity therefore there is no question. Since xianity does not exist Islamic would have to be before xianity as you or someone like you created it if it exists. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ICANT writes: There is no such thing as xianity therefore there is no question. I guess if I asked you to "pls follow the fg", you'd say there's no such thing as "pls" or "fg"? Given your history I'm giving no warnings. See you in a week.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ICant writes: Buz the amount of time there is, the time it takes for light to travel Planck's length. A Planck's length is the shortest distance that there is. And a lot theoretic foundational data is assumed in a Planck's time if that's what the singularity is. The physicists will likely weigh in here if the singularity is not a plank's time to set us straight on that. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
There is no point in time at which the Unvierse does not exist.
I do understand this. But I don't think it is very helpful in terms of considering the question at hand. It is a matter of perspective. That which we call time is as much a part of our universe as is space. If we think of ourselves as beings on the surface of an expanding balloon then from the perspective of those inhabiting this universe the questions 'what came before the beginning of time' or 'when did time start' have no real meaning (North of the North pole etc. etc. and all those other frequently made analogies) However as humans we are blessed with imagination and abstract thought. So we can consider our expanding universe not from the point of view of a dweller within the universe restricted to considering time within that universe alone. Instead we can consider this from the perspective where we are removed and external from it. We can watch our expanding model expanding in 'time' that is external,as are we, to the model itself much as we might watch a balloon expand in ral time and space. If we consider this perspective with this external 'time' - We can ask ourselves what happened at T=0We can ask what happened 'before' T=0 Whether this abstract way of looking at the universe bears an even vague relation to any sort of reality or not and whether these questions therefore have any meaning even from this perspective is another quetion. Either way we ceratinly don't have any answers at the moment. Most models of the unverse are described from the perspective of an observer exteral to the expanding universe. Theories of a multiverse also rely on this sort of perspective. It therefore seems unfair to me to lambast those who ask questions like 'what was there before T=0' for failing to appreciate that from our limited real life perspective there can exist no such thing. Whilst accurate I dont think it reflects the models and perspective we are asking to be considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
lyx2no writes: I have no knowledge at all, hence my repeated claim to having no knowledge at all. I do have knowledge after that which I can extrapolate backwards in an iffy fashion and say if this proceeds as it has up to here then zero would be here. This may indeed be wrong which is why I make no further statement about it and don't hold myself to that one. Hi LikesToKnow. ILyx22. Anyhow, you say in an iffy fashion. 1. Aren't the iffies relative to the Buzsaw Biblical Universe Hypothesis (BBUH} what makes it unfalsifiable? 2. Isn't a lot of the foundational data relative to the Expansionist Universe Theory (EUT) assumed from the unfalsifiable Planck Epoch of T=0 to T=10-43; data such as the Superforce of the unification of the forces of the Universe, the alleged hyper-expansionist epoch, etc? If so, doesn't that jeopardise the falsifiability of Expansionist Universe Theory? 3. The BBUH defines space having no properties except eternally existing static boundless area in which all else in the universe exists, including all forces, having no properties capable of expansion. Observable expansion is accounted for by increasing distances between things in the universe. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote: I've known lots of them. Hie thee to an Orthodox church. You'll see it a lot. Where do you think the following symbol came from? Or this one: But then again, they're Greek. What do they know about Christianity? I mean, it isn't like Constantine created it...oh...wait...he did. Well, it's not like it's part of the Unicode character set...oh...wait...it is (character 2627)
quote: You're calling the entire Orthodox church wrong? I guess I won't mention the Brotherhood of the Sepulchre, then. They use another combined symbol that isn't ☧ (often called the "labarum"): The tau-phi. It's an abbreviation of "taphos," meaning (and I'm sure we all see this coming) "sepulchre." And we better get rid of that "alpha and omega" thing because clearly the Greeks have no concept of what it means to be Christian. I mean, that one's in the Vatican and we all know the Catholics have no concept of Christianity. It isn't like it's called the "monogram of Christ"...oh...wait...it is.
quote: And what, pray tell, does that have to do with anything? The use of "X" for Christ isn't about the word "Christian." It's about the word "Christ." It was a common abbreviation for "Christ" and is still in use today.
quote: Says who? Oh, that is a common transliteration. After all, we spell the name "Christ" and not "Xrist." But like all transliterations, it is simply adopted by convention, not because god declared it to be so. Take a look at enough guide books to Greece, especially older ones, and you'll see it spelled "Cnossos" rather than "Knossos." Classical transliteration uses "C" for kappa, not "K." Is it "phyllo" dough or "filo"?
quote: Except that wasn't the symbol that was chosen. The Greek Christians who came up with the symbol used their own language and since the romanization of Greek includes a letter that looks an awful lot like Χ, we simply used the same grapheme.
quote: Are you seriously claiming the Orthodox don't know their own symbology? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote:quote: And since when did dictionaries become proscriptive? I notice you have completely ignored the rest of my post:
Rrhain writes: There are not an infinite number of stars. Therefore, you can number them. Do not confuse the difficulty of the task with impossibility. Now, do you think you can come to terms with understanding the difference between a difficult task and an impossible one? Besides, that wasn't what you were talking about. Your own words:
ICANT writes: That simply means there are too many to be numbered. To number them you would have to count them. Not extimate them. But you can number them. You can count them. It is an extremely difficult task, but difficult is not the same as impossible. Still don't remember your own words? Here they are again (Message 39):
ICANT writes: Stars are born all the time so, how can they have a finite number? Still going to insist you weren't referring to an "infinite" amount? How is one supposed to interpret "how can they have a finite number"? Were you, perhaps, meaning "fixed"? If so, that still doesn't help your cause. Mutable numbers are still countable. The population of a country is in flux due to births, deaths, immigration, and emigration, but that hardly means you can't count the number of people in the country at any given time.
quote: I see you have confused "difficult" with "impossible" again. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote:quote: Huh? What does this have to do with the expansion of the universe? That's what my comment was about. You said, and I quote (Message 62):
ICANT writes: Unless you can get it to magic like the universe appearing expanding. And I responded that the universe doesn't simply "appear" to be expanding. It actually is. We can measure that expansion via the red-shift. And given our current measurements, it appears that the expansion is accelerating. What does the origin of the universe have to do with this?
quote: OK, since you seem to want to avoid the original topic of discussion: Why? Applying electricity to a piece of glass and being able to see a recording of a moon landing sounds like magic to me, but it isn't. The simple fact of the matter is we don't know how the universe came into being. But what that has to do with how the universe behaves after it came into existence is beyond me. Once again, you seem to be engaging in the common creationist fallacy that since we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.
quote: Why? The Casimir Effect shows us that no, not everything comes from something. Sometimes, things just appear. Note, this does not mean I am saying that the universe is just one big example of the Casimir Effect. I am simply pointing out that your assumption about the way the universe works is false. Since sometimes things just appear, it is not beyond the pale, in and of itself, to consider the possibility that the universe simply came into being on its own. After all, what's to stop it?
quote: Why not? Be specific and show your work. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
1. Aren't the iffies relative to the Buzsaw Biblical Universe Hypothesis (BBUH} what makes it unfalsifiable? Partially, but your . um . series of ordered words has a bigger failing in regard to falsifiability when God has the ability to change the out come of any possible prediction to either fit or fail. My hypothesis for the interval 0T10-43 doesn’t meet the standard of falsifiability because it doesn’t exist.
2. Isn't a lot of the foundational data relative to the Expansionist Universe Theory (EUT) assumed from the unfalsifiable Planck Epoch of T=0 to T=10-43; data such as the Superforce of the unification of the forces of the Universe, the alleged hyper-expansionist epoch, etc? If so, doesn't that jeopardise the falsifiability of Expansionist Universe Theory? How would I know how much of the foundational date to the Expansionist Universe Theory (EUT) is assumed from the unfalsifiable Plank Epoch of T=0 to T=10-43? I'm not the one who made it up. (Just between you and me, if you google one of these theories and only your name comes up associated with it, it's not likely reliable.) Science, however, doesn’t use unknowns as foundations for stuff except I Don’t Know (IDK).
3. The BBUH defines space having no properties except eternally existing static boundless area in which all else in the universe exists, including all forces, having no properties capable of expansion. Observable expansion is accounted for by increasing distances between things in the universe. I hope it was your hat that you pulled this out of instead of where Rahvin is likely to suggest. But why are the distances between things in the Universe increasing? Kindly Ta-da ≠ QED
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote:quote: Huh? What part of "you quoted exactly what I said" are you having trouble with? The chapter and verse you are looking for is the one you gave.
quote: Huh? You do realize that a "black dwarf" is only a theoretical star, yes? That the time it would take for a star to become inert is longer than the age of the universe, yes? And that even then, that estimation assumes that protons don't decay and that there are no WIMPs. And that even then, the cosmic background radiation would have cooled off, too, and thus the stars would still shine.
quote:quote: That doesn't answer the question. Journalism is what allows the world to see anything beyond what's in front of their faces. Are you saying there was no such thing as journalism before the invention of satellite TV? That the only way to see anything is through the use of satellite TV?
quote:quote: (*chuckle*) Just who are "they"? Go ask the Jews whether or not they follow the "same god" as Christians and see how many positive responses you get. There's that little thing about Jesus being the son of god that tends to get in the way.
Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes: Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism "Judeo-Christian" as a term meaning "common religious heritage" was an invention of Eisenhower as a means of distinguishing the United States from those "godless Soviets." And he only did that because we had so recently come out of WWII and Judaism was in the public consciousness.
quote: Right. WWII and the creation of Israel has nothing to do with it.
quote: Huh? Where do we read anything in the Bible about Islam? Besides, Jesus said that was supposed to happen about 2000 years ago. After all, he told numerous people that they would live to see it. So unless you're saying that there are 2000-year-old people running around, that prophecy failed a long time ago. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Lyx2no writes: I hope it was your hat that you pulled this out of instead of where Rahvin is likely to suggest. But why are the distances between things in the Universe increasing? Neither hat nor arse. Imo that space has no properties capable of expansion is refutable and better minds than mine would agree to that, though likely too off topic to debate here in depth. The increase of distances relative to things in the observable area of the universe could be effected by work of the designer/creator, could be temporal and/or regional relative to the entire observable and non-observable ares of the universe. Imo expansionists assume too much uniformability relative to how the uiverse was billions of years far removed. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024