Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

Rrhain, in message 191 I said this relative to 2LoT which you apparently choose to ignore: I suggest you hone in on specific statements, copy and paste and we'll discuss. Time in the infinite model relates to things & events in the universe, not the universe perse. The unseen dimension of forces & intelligence which some of us are significantly aware of in the universe are of what we call a spiritual nature, uncomprehendable by the natural man as the NT puts it.This dimension of existence, according to the scriptures involves elements of the 2nd law (abe: such as) the day of rest which God himself did and that in Heaven where we shall abide there is the Tree Of Life for creatures to partake of, thereby sustaining energy for perpetuality & the leaves of that tree for the "healing of the nations."The work that Omnipotent god, Jehovah does never renders his energy less than his creation, the recipient of his energy. This is likely effected via the recycling of energy within the system thus rendering it a perpetual system, nevertheless compatible to 2LoT. That's my hypothesis. That's all it is, but I'm vehement in claiming that status for it.I see the unknowns in that as less serious than the unknowns of your BB theory. I'm sure you disagree, but that doesn't necessarily make you any more intelligent, lucid or rational than I as well as millions of others who take issue with your POV.Edited by Buzsaw, : Indicated in context.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

There are indeed numerous messages concerning your assertions and the Laws of Thermodynamics. The question is whether you intend to answer them with more than assertions.I'm still waiting for a response to Message 13

quote:

---

This is likely effected via the recycling of energy within the system thus rendering it a perpetual system, nevertheless compatible to 2LoT. That's my hypothesis. That's all it is, but I'm vehement in claiming that status for it.

---

So your system works by violating the laws of thermodynamics in a way that is consistent with them ? The reason you so vehemently assert that your "hypothesis" agrees with the laws of thermodynamics is because it isn't true ? It certainly seems so given your refusal to deal with the points that have been raised against your assertion.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

As I've tried to convey throughout this thread is that my hypothesis is unique in that it involves aspects which conventional science refuses to research for consideration, the possibility of higher dimension of existence in the universe.My hypothesis includes factors not addressed by conventional science which apply principles of 2LoT. The conventional BB T<0, implies energy emerging from nothing which defies all LoTs in the temporal BB model, the reasons being those which I have addressed throughout the thread.Of course you disagree. That's fine. You have your unknowns as I do. Imo, neither POV is falsifiable; yours unable to falsify energy emerging from TFaith And Belief discussing it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Turok's instanton did not come from virtually nothing. It came from the absence of anything.That I have a problem with.The physics law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.If someone wants to say an instanton can appear today I got no problem with that as there is mass and energy for one to appear from.But to say one appeared when there was an absence of anything, no time, no space, no gravity, or no matter is a lot different than saying it came from virtually nothing.Concerning the source of Turok's instanton he said on page 13:
Index | Relativity and Gravitation Group This is post script. Turok himself said his instanton could not exist. He said if one item was missing it would not happen. So how could it happen if all four were missing.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."

You talk about inflation as if it is as accepted as the Big Bang Theory.That is not the case.In fact there is no theory of inflation according to BRANDENBERGER. Inflation: hard to verify.Inflation: Hard to falsify.If you have sources that say different please post them.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."

Actually, this thread is in [forum=-34], and I put it here because the opening post assumes the existence of a supernatural entity, Jehovah.This thread is 75% used up. You haven't much time left if your goal is to make your ideas clear to others. If that's not your goal then just continue ducking and weaving.Please, no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I requested that you answer Message 13. Quoting it without addressing the content is not an answer.The point of Message 13 is that you invoked a clear-cut violation of the 2LoT. This is not opinion, but objective fact. The 2LoT forbids any decrease in the total entropy. That IS the 2LoT.Your attack on mainstream science is also seriously in error. The Big Bang theory proper does not deal with T<0. The various other cosmological theories or hypotheses underlying the Big Bang include those that deny the existence of T<0 win.

As you said it can stay the same. In a perpetual model such as mine it would remain stable, never reaching equalibrium, the source of energy remaining greater; this all by work management of the ID creator/designer. Science has no such perpetual model. That doesn't mean it is not a possibility if there is an omnipotent designer. Nor does it mean it necessarily violates 2LoT. 1. I didn't say it dealt with the BB proper. I've shown factually that BB theory being temporal requires a T<0. Nobody yet has substantially refuted that fact. If mistaken please cite where. The fact that it, being temporal, requires such renders it in violation of the LOTs.2. If other cosmological BB theories are temporal how can they deny a T<0? All temporal models would require a T<0, including YUC (young Universe creationist.)

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

As you said it can stay the same. In a perpetual model such as mine it would remain stable, never reaching equalibrium, the source of energy remaining greater; this all by work management of the ID creator/designer. Science has no such perpetual model. That doesn't mean it is not a possibility if there is an omnipotent designer. Nor does it mean it necessarily violates 2LoT.

---

This point has already been refuted. Since you have infinite time, and since you do NOT have entropy remaining unchanged for all that time - or any reason to think that entropy was not increasing for all that time you still need an explanation for WHY the universe has not reached equilibrium. Your first attempt directly contradicted the 2LoT - yet you ignored that and went on claiming that your hypothesis was consistent with the 2LoT.

quote:

---

1. I didn't say it dealt with the BB proper. I've shown factually that BB theory being temporal requires a T<0. Nobody yet has substantially refuted that fact. If mistaken please cite where. The fact that it, being temporal, requires such renders it in violation of the LOTs.

---

You claim that the BB theory posits a T < 0 and claims that the energy of this universe must have popped out of nothing. Neither is true. I have not seen any valid argument from you to support either of these alleged "facts". Indeed it is highly unlikely that any model including a finite past would include a T < 0, since the origin of the time axis would almost certainly be placed at the very beginning of time. That would be the natural thing to do. (And of course if it were not done then there would still be no innate significance to the fact that there was time prior to an arbitrarily chosen zero point).

quote:

---

2. If other cosmological BB theories are temporal how can they deny a T<0? All temporal models would require a T<0, including YUC (young Universe creationist.)

---

As I point out above, this assertion is clearly false. It is easy and natural for a model including a finite past to deny a T < 0.

I suppose that would be so if you used the Wikipeda definition of finite.Finite - Wikipedia So would you please explain to me how time could be non-zero and not reach eternally into the past and future. Either there was something.ORThere was an absence of anything.If there was something it had to exist in some form eternally into the past.ORCome from an absence of anything. Thats creation ex nihilo.The universe is here. It either came from something or it came from an absence of anything. Which was it?String hypothesis and bounce hypothesis are trying to go past the point that GR breaks down but the problem there is nothing is traceable past that inferno. Anything past T=10^-43 requires faith. Because all science can say is we don't know.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."

1. My first attempt did not directly contradict the 2LoT. Your response required clarification and you got it.2. I did not say entropy remained unchanged. My position was that it is relatively stable with the source of energy always greater.3. You choose to ignore my contention that my model factors in omnipotent ID, not researched or addressed by conventional science. Nobody has yet substantiated that this model cannot be reconciled with 2LoT.4. How many times do I need to remind you that this is a perpetual model where energy is managed by work of the intelligent source of energy effecting ID? Paul, you keep on keeping on ignoring my valid points and repeating your false unsupported arguments.1. Any temporal universe model must have a beginning point, i.e. T<0. Right?2. Since a temporal universe MUST have a beginning, all forces, energy, matter and space had to have come into existence from nothing. Right?3. Pray tell, how does the above temporal model comply with any of the observed laws of science?You keep eating up the thread, alleging "False" as you skirt around my valid points.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

ICant, not sure, but I believe non-zero would apply only to math and not (abe: directly) to space, energy, forces or matter, i.e. existing things. Edited by Buzsaw, : Indicated in context

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1. Wrong. T < 0 would be before the beginning.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Where do you find that Turok mentioned or even hinted that his instanton was a way to describe the inflation of the universe.

---

Oh, from this statement in the paper you quote-mined: Need more? How about this one: You did actually read your own source, didn't you?

quote:

---

The math said exactly what they wanted it to say.

---

(*chuckle*)Now I know you didn't read your own source: They were working on Feynman's work on the Euclidean Einstein action. Are you now saying Einstein and Feynman didn't know whereof they spoke? Yes, yes, I know that Percy is saying that it is beyond the pale to demand you justify your claims with math, but you're the one saying that they got the math wrong. Therefore, it would seem only appropriate for you to show specifically where they screwed up."The math said exactly what they wanted it to say"? Oh really? What, pray tell, did the math actually say? The paper you quoted only lists the above equation. It provides no analysis of it. If you're going to accuse them of cheating, then you're going to have to show where.

---

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.

The word "finite" refers to a period, not an instant. If you have a period of time that goes from time A to time B, that time period is considered finite if A does not equal B (if they were equal, the time elapsed would be zero, which is non-finite), and if neither A nor B is equal to infinite. Note that this does not preclude either A or B (AbE: or any point in between) from being zero. This has been explained to you a billion flippin' times, ICANT. Science doesn't have a "faith" option. The options are "here's a theory (or at least, a hypothesis)" or "no comment." And, "no comment" literally means "nothing": no theory, no hypothesis, no belief, no faith, NOTHING! Granted. But, either way, Big Bang Theory still works after T=10^-43. Until we find some theory that can get at that first Planck epoch, our answer for that is "no comment." So you're welcome to insert your God in this Gap (that is, until a mechanism or theory is developed), but doing so in no way refutes the Big Bang Theory, and your continual assertions that we have faith in our view of the Planck epoch are still incorrect (because we have no view of the Planck epoch yet).Edited by Bluejay, : dBCodes issues and one clarification

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.