Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

Then you know more than the rest of us. Those who’ve looked really closely at all the evidence they can uncover have only been able to account for 13.7 billion years. What evidence have you found to carry our understanding beyond that? Got that part. How was it distributed? You keep saying this, but what does it mean in practical terms? At its best this is gratuitous; yet, good people keep banging their shins into coffee tables, and Hitler got a free ride right up till the time he decided to get off. Doesn’t this contradict #2? And the solution would violate #5. I wonder if I handed in a Navier-Stokes proof to the Clay guys the last line of which stated, “And it gives the right answer.” they’d fork over the million dollars.The “H” in BBUOH is an exaggeration. This is a fiat, a decree, an arbitrary order. I’m betting the Universe ignores you.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

I'm glad you added that line, because up till then it was sounding like pure crap.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

No, it hasn’t. I can not begin count the number of times it has been written in the BB posts that there is no working model prior to T=10^-43. If you’re saying we can’t falsify our declaration of ignorance I can’t but agree with you, but I’ll not call it a theory. Sorry: In what pattern was it originally arranged? Was the energy clumped up in gamma ray balls, UV noodles or IR sauce?To save time I replaced the empty bits of your phrasing with blah, blah, blah. There was simply no content left in your point #3.Edited by lyx2no, : Correct bad line brake.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

No, you must not conclude anything. You do not know my middle initial; from that, conclude my middle name. Please, you’ve got to explain this to me:In the philosophy of science all parts of a valid hypothesis must be falsifiable. If it weren’t we’d not be able to tell if it were real or rubbish.For a hypothesis to be falsifiable it has to have certain characteristics, not the least of which is having been made. As no hypothesis has been made for the time interval 0T10^-43 no hypothesis can be falsified.To what end do you move by constantly repeating that a nonexistent hypothesis is not falsifiable; which, thought true, is exceedingly trivial?

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

T=10^-43 does indeed require a T=0, but that is an artifact of the way we count. If I set up a number line and I say, “This is T=10⁰, and this is T=10^-43, then T=0 would be here if I extended the line thusly.” This would be a statement that is falsifiable. To falsify it one would take a ruler of some type and scale it out and if their X misses my X, and they are right, my statement has been falsified. As this is similar to the only statement made about T=0, then yes, I can, in principle, falsify that T=0 would be at that point there if we can extend our line.T=10^-43 can’t be falsified because it not a statement. T=0 can’t be falsified because it not a statement. 7:27 PM can’t be falsified because it not a statement? One can only falsify a statement.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Well, I’m glad someone is attacking that straw man. I’m fresh out of flying monkeys.But I specifically attacked: And it really doesn’t matter what pseudo theory that regarded.Have you concluded my middle name yet? Today, I picked up a cabbage in the produce department of my local supermarket and put it into a plastic bag. Next, I brought it over to the scale to weigh it out for a price sticker. It weighed out at 2.47 lb. at $1.29 per lb. for a total cost of $3.19. I placed the price sticker on the bag I had put the cabbage into and carried it up to the . Wait . let me start over. I forgot to tell you how I got into the supermarket.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

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.You're asking that I falsify 0<10^-43. That's all the statement says. T=0 clearly happened prior to T=10^-43because that is what it means. It's a matter of definitions. Yesterday came before today because that is what the word yesterday means. T=0 is the name given to the point on the graph where the size of Universe line gets to zero if extrapolated past the last known point. Then the last know is located at T=10^-43 and given that name. I implied nothing about unified forces. You're just shoving fancy words into your statements to make them sound all grown up. What would be much more impressive then fancy words would be a show of understanding of what 10^-43 means. You've used it like a brazillion time and it's still just another magic word to you. You've made an error of a few ten million trillion trillion trillion orders of magnitude*.I don't think you'll ever be able to understand the flaws in any of your arguments if don't rid your language of magic powers.AbE: *It's only 43+log(few) orders of magnitude. It's amazing what can slip by when one is frustrated.Edited by lyx2no, : Scratch "orders of magnitude".

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

I'm betting your kids hated your bedtime stories.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Thanks. I'm a molbiogirl fan myself.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

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. 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). 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?

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Firstly, I’ve given no hint as to my vocation.Secondly, I was asking about your model of the Universe. Physicist or no, I have no way of knowing the wherewithal of your model.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

I pulled the hind legs off a bucket full of toads and stove their little heads with a rubber mallet, but it wasn’t at all cruel and it obeyed 2LoT.Buzsaw, do you see anything non sequiter about the above statement? Anything at all?You cant just claim something follows 2LoT and expect everything else to fall in line.I once met a man who had drawn a carefully laid out plan of a flying saucer. Control rooms and storage rooms, bathrooms and lounges, observation ports and landing gear. And in the very center on the lower three levels (He must have spent months) he had a circular room labeled MAGNETO RESONANCE LEVITATION DEVICE. I spent days without "effectively refuting" his plans viability. Some things just can't be done with some people.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.Edited by lyx2no, : Antitypo (lets hope they don't react.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Once one accepts an omnipotent supreme creator such as is depicted in the Biblical record as an axiom, one might as well not bother speculating on anything else. Worthwhile speculation depends on the laws of nature not being subject to arbitrary influence.You don’t have a hypothesis. You have a nebulous collection of disparate pieces. The only solid piece is your demand upon God to do your bidding in whatever you feel is necessary to hold your feeble plan within the bounds of any reality you’re not able to out right ignore.One of the bits of reality that you have ignored over and over again is that any act of God that reorders even a single particle of the Universe is a violation of 2LoT.Unless, of course, you also require God to become less perfect every time he reorders the Universe for you. Which, by the way, was incumbent upon you to introduce as it needs to be a major part of the evidence you’ll need to present. You have the burden of proof. The World at large, unlike God, is not at your beck and call.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Omnipotent supreme creator’s are not falsifiable. As would anything else that took your fancy. Your pieces amount to:

1. The Universe is eternal and works by magic.
2. Energy is constant and works by magic.
3. The Universe is maintained by magic.
4. The Universe needs to be maintained.
5. Magic isn’t a violation of LoT.

Once one accepts an omnipotent supreme creator such as is depicted in the Biblical record as an axiom everything else just falls in line. Again, how would I know how BBUH is less compatible to 2LoT than the spacial expansionist theory? You made up spacial expansionist theory too. Any rules it follows are known only to you.Edited by lyx2no, : To be smart assier.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Twice now, assuming that Spacial Expansionist Theory (SET) was in actuality Buzsaw’s Straw Man BB (BSMBB), which includes 0T10^-43 and a partridge in a pear tree, I have written that I could not know the rules of SET because Buzsaw made it up. Did he? Or is this a legitimate theory ” even accounting for the variant spelling of spatial ” I simply haven’t heard of; or an alternate name for the standard BB; or do we assume it to mean the BB model ?Would someone please educate me?

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED