|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The one and only non-creationist in this forum. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Whoah, whoah, whoah Serge - you were the one who said that temperature is density. You gave us that definition. You said it, it's on record, we all saw it.
You don't now get to say "temperature is one of those vague concepts nobody got much of a clue what they are talking about" - you sodding defined it ! As density ! I called you on that, and having twigged your mistake, you run away from it, claiming that temperature is a vague concept. How the hell can you believe that, having just defined it ? If you are going to pretend to maintain a position, have the integrity to fight your corner, and not run away from your own definition.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3997 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Temperature is the term used and left undefined by bigbangers not me. I was doing their job for them. You are a bigbanger? Don't like my definitions? Give it a try yourself. The feline is all ears.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3997 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
That is not any example of such. It's a weak inference you still need to demonstrate to be anything more. Stop begging the question. Such a fervent gall in defence of bigbangism!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Mad writes:
Your reply doesn't even contain the word 'zero'. "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. Since you know so much about the BBT, it is bizarre that you can't provide any material supporting your claim. Is the request too difficult? I'll ask again:Can you show where the Big Bang Theory says that something is multiplied by zero? "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3997 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
Don't worry Pandita. We'll bring you nose into all the zeros you clamour for. We'll rub your left pinnochio well and good into every bigbangist zilch. Just be patient. The feline has been busy elsewhere but he keeps in mind your urgent request.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Sorry, Vatican. How insincere, CrazyJew.
The math is no secret you hint it is and no language failure follows an attempt to translate it into English or any other tongue the cat is familiar with. I've not implied its a secret, only that you don't understand it, which is evident from your postings. You say the BBT says there was nothing, and it does not. You call the singularity an entity, which it is not. You've avoided addressing these gross error of yours.
It is easily read as follows: an increase in one variable which is three-dimensional volume as a function of another variable which is a linear time. Exponent and a linear function. Simple. To expand is a fair translation of what the mathematics imply. Other synonyms fit as well. Sure, but the limitations of the word "expand", which is used to analogize the mathematics, are not necessarily limitation on the math, itself. This is the point you haven't addressed.
The only problem with that is that unlike in all other known and verified by ample experience cases of that process described with a similar maths, Well geez, who'd of thunk that the Universe as a whole might behave unlike all other things that are constrained within it Your lack of imagination and understaning are, thankfully, no hindrance to the scientists who are unfolding knowledge in this arena.
here the mathemagician does not provide any physical justification of the alleged universal increase of volume. Oh look! You're lying again. Cosmological redshift and the CMBR are, in fact (and contrary to your unevidenced assertions), phyisical justifacations of the theory. Again, this is something you are unwilling to even address. The only thing you have to offer is: "well, it might be different"
All the fantasist quack got to one side of the equation is a zero as the possible source of the volume allegedly gained. Nothing at all as it is usual with the bigbangist mathemythics. Sorry to inform you of that. Again, you're just lying. I've already pointed out this lie of yors and you haven't addressed it: The BBT does not have a zero to one side of the equation. Please stop spreading this lie. But I know you won't becase you're a dishonest asshole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Just for giggles, I thought I'd post an extract from one of our friend's threads on MySpace from just under 2 years ago:
I am totally puzzled by this, I have no clue and my poor brain goes in a twist pondering the question. I even have some trouble formulating it let alone solving my trouble. Anyway, I'll try to be as simple as possible and if anybody can enlighten me from a purely scientific perspective, I would love them to be doing it in equally simple terms as if explaining the matter to a child (The topic of the thread is "Time - Relatively relative or absolutely absolute"). It's terribly sad when someone's proper humility dies. Of course, there are two other possibilities - in between that thread and now, our friend had a series of incredible (albeit unevidenced) revelations about the true nature of physics, and no longer feels the need for humility; or alternatively, he just trailed the thread on MySpace to entice a few posters to troll with. Either way, I prefer the earlier language Ho... Ly... Shit. I always knew that Alf was an insincere lying asshole, but this just confirms it. He employs his obscure verbiage to obfuscate his ignorance and misunderstandings. Since he cannot honestly and intellecutally debate the subject, he has to resort to hiding his faults behing colorful and deceiving language. It was as plain as day, but this glimpse into his verbal capability proves his dishonesty. Thanks, V.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Mad writes:
Fair enough. Don't worry Pandita. We'll bring you nose into all the zeros you clamour for. We'll rub your left pinnochio well and good into every bigbangist zilch. Just be patient. The feline has been busy elsewhere but he keeps in mind your urgent request.I didn't realise that it was such a difficult thing for you to do. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7
|
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: the Planck volume" - which is, as I said, "pretty small" but not zero. Where did that pretty small thing come from? Had it always existed? If so, where did it exist? If it had not always existed how did it begin to exist? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Temperature is a perfectly well defined concept. Do you seriously think people don't know what temperature is?
The statistical mechanical definition is the most general one, why don't you look it up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
ICANT writes:
Nobody knows as of November 2012. We will probably need a Quantum theory of Gravity to figure it out fully.
Where did that pretty small thing come from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ICANT writes:
And does the BBT say anything about those things? Where did that pretty small thing come from?Had it always existed? If so, where did it exist? If it had not always existed how did it begin to exist? "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Where did that pretty small thing come from? Had it always existed? If so, where did it exist? If it had not always existed how did it begin to exist? We have absolutely no idea. But we are certain that it happened. Creationists try to mix up these two things, but they are obviously distinct. For example, I can know for certain that I've lost my glasses, and have no idea why I lost my glasses. We can be absolutely certain that something has happened and yet be completely ignorant of the cause. If forensic scientists tell us that John Smith died of gunshot wounds, then we should believe them. We don't cast doubt on their conclusions because they can't tell us who shot him and why. That's not even their job, their job is to tell us how he died. Well, the same thing applies to the Big Bang. I have absolutely no idea why it happened, and furthermore if physicists ever find out why it happened I probably won't understand their explanation. And I have a Ph.D. in math, but it's the wrong kind of math. Even if someone explains the "why" of the Big Bang, I probably won't understand it. But I do know enough to think that it definitely happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3997 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
Translate that statistical mechanical definition in terms of that pretty small thing of Planck size for the benefit of the stupid moggy, Son.
What are the mechanics and stats of it and how do you derive the temperature value?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Translate that statistical mechanical definition in terms of that pretty small thing of Planck size for the benefit of the stupid moggy, Son.
Okay. The statistical mechanical definition of temperature, I'll stick to the less general one, is basically the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gas. The earliest point of the universe's history described by the Big Bang theory has the universe as a quark-gluon plasma filled with an electroweak plasma (W-bosons, electrons, e.t.c)This "thing" was not Planck sized, it was a good few orders of magnitude larger. Its temperature was then just the average kinetic energy of the particles in the plasma.
What are the mechanics
The motion of the particles.
and stats
The notion of taking averages is statistical.
how do you derive the temperature value
The average kinetic energy.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024