Summations Only

No you wouldn't. We observe that galaxies are moving away from us, and that movement correlates with distance. We observe that the universe is expanding. What is irrational about it? What other explanation do you have for the correlation between distance and redshift?

What a strange lie.What a strange guy.

The initial Planck volume immediately following the zero volume of singularity is embedded in nothing. The whole Universe is one at that instant with zero surroundings. One and zero. That's all you've got. What arithmetic operations can you do with that? If you multiply that by itself you get the same one, if you multiply one by zero you still don't get nothing much. The quacks get the whole lot you see around you in the Universe right now from the operations forbidden to the five year old. That's a bloody serious increase of volume derived from nothing they are getting away with.

Yeah, and biologists tell us that you can add two rabbits together and get eight rabbits. They're so stupid, they don't even understand grade-school math. Any kindergartener could tell them that if you add one and one together, you don't get eight. Biologists are such idiots.Or, here's a thought, maybe you're an idiot? This hypothesis would be consistent with the observation that everyone tells you you're an idiot.

It would seem that if you have 1 of something then you have 1 of something. If you have one apple does that apple disappear if it is surrounded by vacuum? No. The apple still exists.

Inadequate, where you did you get the second rabbit from? A mathemythical hat? There is only one rabbit of Planck size in the theorem, remember? No environment either, you are forgetting the zero in the equation. Three at least instead one and zero. You are either cheating or are less intelligent than the five year old, you got many from zero. Forbidden bigbangist monkey trick, sorry.

So is there one rabbit or isn't there?

I'm sorry, for a moment there I talked to you as though you weren't an idiot. My mistake. It won't happen again.Let me make it up to you right now by speaking to you as you deserve.You are an ignorant pig wallowing in the filth of your own stupidity. You are a disgusting and ludicrous spectacle, and the only conceivable purpose of your existence is that people can watch you rolling around in your own intellectual excrement and say to one another: "You see how dirty and stupid that guy is? Let's not be like him". They could use you as a warning to children.Now, it has been suggested by some people that you are merely a deliberate troll. They propose that you are wasting your life pretending to be insane and mentally retarded. I admit the possibility. However, I would say that anyone who wastes so much of his life pretending to be insane and mentally retarded is, in fact, insane and mentally retarded. Otherwise you'd do something sane and non-retarded with your time instead. For example, have you ever heard of these things called women? They're quite awesome, especially when they take their clothes off. When you've stopped drooling out ignorant and contemptible nonsense, you might want to check that out.

Can you show where the Big Bang Theory says that something is multiplied by zero?An example would be:

quote:

---

According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. (Wiki)

---

Before you dive into the sty with your wrestling togs on, remember that the pig likes it.

Sorry, Inadequate. The state of play is different. I caught you red-handed cheating in schoolboy exercises in order to defend creationist cosmogony masquerading as science. Your diversion tactics and tirades about my ignorance fool nobody. Justify getting extra rabbits without mathemythical hats, or shut the fuck up. Simple. Understand?

It depends. There is one Planck size rabbit there if the cat is being charitable to you lot. Since even that is not physically justified in your hypothesis. The rabbit is just asserted to pop out of the singularity of zero size exactly. No reason is given for that.

The apples do not grow in vacuum though. Apple of Planck size in vacuum remains an apple of Planck size in vacuum. You don't get anything greater. Planck is rotating in his grave listening to your travesty of his ideas. The idea was of the size and unit that was not divisible any further. The absolute least conceivable. Your lot try to pack the whole of divided existence into that.

"According to the Big Bunk model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today" is clearly a fantastic assertion. Self-contradictory hogwash.
The parameters given make none of it possible according to any clear definition of the terms used. What could be a possible temperature of a Planck size entity? Temperature is the density of objects in confined chaotic motion. Planck size is not further divisible by definition so no motion of any objects giving off radiation to read as temperature is possible by definition. No objects, no free space, no motion, no radiation, no temperature. Sorry, Pandita, go peddle your wickedpeddlarian nonsense to the gullible. The Cheshire grins and is not swallowing any.

Got to give this one a try. Now according to the Oxford dictionary, this is density: So let's take one litre of cold water from the tap, and put it in a closed one litre container. That closed one litre container is nice and strong, and won't expand on the oven.Now put the container, with one litre of water in it on the oven and turn on the heat. Five minutes later, take the container off the heat.Now then, AM - you started off with one litre of water in a one litre container. It was cold, but its molecules were still in chaotic motion, as you state.You ended up with one litre of water in a one litre container. The same amount of water in the same volume. So the density (remember, it is "the quantity of mass per unit volume of a substance") has stayed the same. The mass is the same ("Mass" is the amount of water - if you want you can weigh it - it will be the same). The volume is the same. So the density is the same.You say, AM, that "Temperature is the density of objects in confined chaotic motion", so since the density is the same, according to your definition of temperature, the temperature of the water must be the same after you had it on the oven for 5 minutes.So how come it started off cold, and now I can make a nice cup of tea with it ?