# Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking



## Political Junky (Mar 3, 2018)

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the _National Geographic_'s _Star Talk_ show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 3, 2018)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...



Who cares???

Greg


----------



## K9Buck (Mar 3, 2018)

Absurd.  The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking.  Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.


----------



## Mousterian (Mar 3, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> Absurd.  The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking.  Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.


Are you sure? Can you touch it?


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 3, 2018)

gtopa1 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > There will be much discussion of this.
> ...


Surprise, you don't.  LOL


----------



## Windparadox (Mar 3, 2018)

`
It's pretty much nonsensical to refer to "before" the Big Bang as time/space didn't exist until "after" the Big Bang. 
`


----------



## K9Buck (Mar 3, 2018)

There is a plethora of evidence that the universe had a beginning and ZERO evidence that it is eternal.  Yes, time began with the Big Bang.  The universe is a realm, a realm that was caused into existence by a creator.  End of story.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 3, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> There is a plethora of evidence that the universe had a beginning and ZERO evidence that it is eternal.


But here's whereyou are missing the point:

It seems to have had a beginning to us observers, confined inside this instance of a universe. But , just because it appears so to us does not make it so. Hawking is referring to an asymptotic approach to the beginning of time, if one travels backwards in time. This is something that is generally agreed upon by all physicists. The new info here (for the layman) is that the issue of no true beginning/ppearance of beginning has been mathematically solved, with the solution relying on the boundlessness of time.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 3, 2018)

gtopa1 said:


> Who cares???
> 
> Greg


This is the Science and Technology board. If you don't care about developments in science why do you come here to troll.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 3, 2018)

Windparadox said:


> `
> It's pretty much nonsensical to refer to "before" the Big Bang as time/space didn't exist until "after" the Big Bang.
> `



Half true, according to Hawking.


----------



## Windparadox (Mar 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Half true, according to Hawking.


`
Hawking is big into "*string theory*." From what I understand, the most remarkable thing about string theory is that such a simple idea works--- it is possible to derive the Standard Model from a theory of strings. But it should also be said that, there is at this time, no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of the natural order of things. This is mostly due to the fact that string theory is still under development. We know bits and pieces of it, but we do not yet see the whole picture, and we are therefore unable to make definite predictions. 
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2018)

Windparadox said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Half true, according to Hawking.
> ...


Yep...no empirical evidence, and some of the things we would expect to find (according to some predictions of string theory)  have not appeared.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Mar 4, 2018)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...



Non sequitur by Hawking. If the Big Bang created the Universe from nothing, there was NOTHING. No space, no time. Nothing. 

I saw this on a feed and wondered what Hawking was talking about, it makes no sense. Many people think the Big Bang happened in empty space. The theory is that the universe came into existence from nothing. This is a very hard concept for humans to imagine as they always picture empty space or some 'space' where things had to happen. No, there was not even empty space, nothing means the absolute value of nothing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> If the Big Bang created the Universe from nothing, there was NOTHING.



 Hawking is very explicitly statinng that the big bang did not create the universe "from nothing".


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 4, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > If the Big Bang created the Universe from nothing, there was NOTHING.
> ...


Many of us have a problem with infinity, too. The universe is infinite.


----------



## Toro (Mar 4, 2018)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...



It’s about time he figured that out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2018)

Political Junky said:


> The universe is infinite


Maybe, but that is not part and parcel of what Hawkng is saying. "Boundless" is not the equivalent of "infinite".


----------



## Windparadox (Mar 4, 2018)

`
I don't believe in "infinity." It's just another way of saying it's a number so vast, it is beyond human comprehension. 
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2018)

Windparadox said:


> `
> I don't believe in "infinity." It's just another way of saying it's a number so vast, it is beyond human comprehension.
> `


Ha...no...it is a mathematical concept, and it is quite real. The summation of infinite series was a breakthrough in human thought and got us over the most fundamental of philosophical paradoxes.


----------



## Windparadox (Mar 4, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ha...no...it is a mathematical concept, and it is quite real. The summation of infinite series was a breakthrough in human thought and got us over the most fundamental of philosophical paradoxes.


`
We differ then. You are laboring under the handicap that us humans already have a firm grasp on that which is "knowable." We humans have already postulated that the closer one gets to a "black hole", the more all our laws of physics break down. That is to say, there are realms of reality and science we are totally ignorant of, because in essence, us humans are not hard wired (so to speak) to conceptualize such things. The math breaks down. Infinite means; "I don't understand."
`


----------



## K9Buck (Mar 4, 2018)

Political Junky said:


> The universe is infinite.



In the physical realm.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Mar 4, 2018)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...


Time is a condition of a current event.  Without man time is constant list of events, on just this third rack from the Sun.  In space it is the same.  Example:  Earth tilts and seasons change.  Moon moves tides change.  So the reversing time can not be done.  The same goes for gravity that M=G >..>.  This is why Stonehenge was created.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2018)

Windparadox said:


> You are laboring under the handicap that us humans already have a firm grasp on that which is "knowable.


Not at all, and I have no idea where you get this from. Maybe you can connect those dots for me. Of course we cannot fathom "infinity". We cannot even fathom "one billion". So your definition of infinity as "a number too large for us too grasp, but not actually infinite" really misses the mark.

Infinity does not mean, "I do not understand". Infinity is a well-defined mathematical concept, and we understand it well.

Yes, our physical laws break down at a singularity. No, we dont understand what happens within a singularity...heck, we dont even understand what that question means, as our math tells us it has no meaning!


----------



## IsaacNewton (Mar 4, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > If the Big Bang created the Universe from nothing, there was NOTHING.
> ...



I admit I didn't read the article yet. Hawking though would now have to explain if there is something outside of our universe. It is expanding from an infinitesimal point and it is not infinite. What does he propose at the outer boundary, something on the other side that the universe is expanding into? Up until now it has been 'nothing is outside the boundary, there is no outside the boundary'. 

It seems like a simple thing he is saying but it isn't, he's nearly throwing out all previous cosmological theory in one go. I think Hawking on the level of Einstein and have immense respect for him but this one will have to have plenty of math to back it up. Let's see what other prominent physicists have to say. At this point I do not agree with his assertion. Let's see what shakes out.


----------



## Windparadox (Mar 4, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not at all, and I have no idea where you get this from. Maybe you can connect those dots for me. Of course we cannot fathom "infinity". We cannot even fathom "one billion". So your definition of infinity as "a number too large for us too grasp, but not actually infinite" really misses the mark.Infinity does not mean, "I do not understand". Infinity is a well-defined mathematical concept, and we understand it well.Yes, our physical laws break down at a singularity. No, we dont understand what happens within a singularity...heck, we dont even understand what that question means, as our math tells us it has no meaning!


`
Fair enough. Nonetheless, you admit it yourself, "infinity" is a "concept." It's a way for us to understand something, or to dismiss that which we can't. Numbers and symbols are human inventions to aid us in understanding. We quantify our beliefs based on these numbers and symbols. That's perfectly acceptable if one is thinking inside the box. The beauty and symmetry of numbers cannot be denied, especially when they "_balance the equation_", so to speak. 

Our reality is strangely enough, a struggle of opposites. Chaos and order, for example. String theory gives cosmologists the opportunity to go outside the box but it is limited by our own imagination. Since we can't image a number so great it is impossible for humans to comprehend, we invented "infinity" to explain it. We exist by a cosmic fluke then. We are merely one particle more than anti-matter, at least according to the Big Bang. I suppose I ultimately believe in an Alpha and Omega....a beginning and an end.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


I thin you overestimate the profundity of what he is saying. He is saying that there is no beginning, in that you could never travel back in time and reach a "boundary". Scientists have long accepted this as the case, if it is assumed that a singularity (or an equivalent state) existed at the "beginning".


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Mar 4, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> Absurd.  The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking.  Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.



What was before the Universe and time was there.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2018)

Windparadox said:


> "infinity" is a "concept." It's a way for us to understand something, or to dismiss that which we can't.


It is neither of those things, really. It is really just a label. One would be incorrect to say it merely represents something "very large". 


Windparadox said:


> Since we can't image a number so great it is impossible for humans to comprehend, we invented "infinity" to explain it.


Trust me, this is really not correct. We don't have to "imagine" a number to write it down.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2018)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Absurd.  The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking.  Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.
> ...


According to Hawking, that is a nonsensical thing for us to ask.


----------



## MPS777 (Mar 4, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


One theory is that beyond our known universe is a larger multiverse, with other universes.  Between universes is a theoretical “inflation field”; and it is all mathematically consistent with modern “big bang” inflationary cosmology.  The following article has a lot of good info on it, though the title is a bit too absolutist for me (since there are indeed detractors to the theory):
The Multiverse Is Inevitable, And We're Living In It
but the gist of it is that a huge amount of energy would be bound up in that “inflation field”, and a quantum fluctuation can cause it to collapse in any given location.  This collapse would convert the potential energy in the field into the space/matter/energy that we know.  Our big bang then was an energy conversion event.  The crazy part to me is that they predict a kind of “loophole” in the laws of gravity that allow the inflation field to eternally grow between the “pocket universes” so that new universes would emerge in the regions between.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Yes, love it. True or not true, such a model resolves all manner of problems, like the one addressed by Hawking.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> Hawking though would now have to explain if there is something outside of our universe.


 Hawking would not have to explain this. While the answer to this question may ultimately be important to understanding our own universe more fully, the things he is saying do not rule out a multiverse; they do not necessitate it, either.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2018)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...


I’ve always know that just like BC and AD we have before the Big Bang and after. Easy


----------



## IsaacNewton (Mar 4, 2018)

I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know. 

And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.
> 
> And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.


If you understand the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago how hard is it to understand there was a time 29 billion years ago. That time did exist. This universe may not have existed but time as we know it is eternal.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Mar 4, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.
> ...



The Big Bang theory is that everything including time came into existence at that moment. Before that there was nothing.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


And I’ve seen shows where they have evidence or reasons that may challenge that. 

As far as we are concerned sure, time started at the Big Bang. Before that is unknowable.

But common sense says there was a time 100 billion years ago. 

And who knows what will happen when the last star and last black hole dies in our universe. Maybe a collapse will happen and the process will happen all over again. Again this is another unknowable. But still time will exist even if this universe doesn’t.

Time is eternal. Say it. Believe it. Never born and never dies. If it makes it easier for you call it god


----------



## IsaacNewton (Mar 4, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



It doesn't hold with theory. I'm not sure why you'd be on 'time's' side or not. I think the problem lies with a misunderstanding of what 'nothing' is in this setting. Nothing doesn't mean empty space, it doesn't mean some void where things are waiting to happen. It means the absolute value of nothing. You don't have to try to imagine it because there is nothing to imagine.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


Well I don’t have faith in the theory. Or I don’t have to accept it entirely for example if multiverses exist and I tend to be open to the idea our universe Is just one of many.

So when our universe dies it’s not the first or last


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 4, 2018)

We have so much to learn. I don't think killing off all science funding and accepting a 2,000 year old religion is going to help us find the answers to these questions either.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> Before that there was nothing


*possibly as far as we could ever discern.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2018)

ScienceRocks said:


> We have so much to learn. I don't think killing off all science funding and accepting a 2,000 year old religion is going to help us find the answers to these questions either.


I just saw what it will take to send a submarine to Europa. It would be the greatest challenge and accomplishment. Conservatives don’t want us to find life elsewhere because it will mean life happens everywhere conditions are right.

The tardigrades is the toughest thing we know and it couldn’t survive at the bottom of Europa so anything living on the bottom of Europa would be really tough.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 4, 2018)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...




Hawking's an ass that has already been proven wrong before.  He mainly gets a free ride because of his disability because he promotes public interest in the field..  

Time is a function of space-time, and without space you cannot have time since time is an extension of space.  To say that time never began (was always there) is the same as saying that space was always there, which violates every accepted principle of the creation of the universe, that it all expanded from a point of creation.

Before the Big Bang, there was no space for time to occur in, in any conventional reference that we can know.  Whatever occurred to spark creation came from another plane, another dimension, and no one, not even Hawking understands it, much less can say what boundaries were and were not there.  It's all just a big guess.


----------



## K9Buck (Mar 5, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> Conservatives don’t want us to find life elsewhere because it will mean life happens everywhere conditions are right.



You know there are conservative atheists, right?


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 5, 2018)

Mousterian said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Absurd.  The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking.  Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.
> ...


Yes, and so can you.  Just wait for it.


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 5, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Before that there was nothing
> ...


So how do you define "nothing"? 

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 5, 2018)

toobfreak said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > There will be much discussion of this.
> ...



Can you have time in a vacuum?

Greg


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 5, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives don’t want us to find life elsewhere because it will mean life happens everywhere conditions are right.
> ...


Not really. Moderate maybe


----------



## OZman (Mar 5, 2018)




----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

The fact is that Hawking needs someone to feed him and wipe his rear end.
He’s making less per statement these days so he makes a statement every 6 months or so to pay his nurse.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares???
> ...


A theory is *not* an advancement.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > There is a plethora of evidence that the universe had a beginning and ZERO evidence that it is eternal.
> ...


“Mathematically solved”
Thanks for proving you didn’t read the article.
It states explicitly there is no proof for the theory.


----------



## deanrd (Mar 5, 2018)

Mousterian said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Absurd.  The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking.  Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.
> ...


What else exists you can’t touch?


----------



## Windparadox (Mar 5, 2018)

gtopa1 said:


> So how do you define "nothing"?Greg


`
Nothing is the absence of anything. Even a vacuum is something. Nothing means No time/space, No gravity, No electromagnetic or nuclear strong/weak force. It's impossible to even image "nothing."


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 5, 2018)

gtopa1 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...




Of course!  Why wouldn't you?  For one thing, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.  Even the vacuum of deep space has particles and energies passing through it.  And a vacuum occupies space.  A vacuum is an area of space where particle density is very low.  It has a point in space where it begins and ends.  A point where it is contained.  And a point in time where it started occurring and at some point will be interrupted.  If something occurs in space, it occurs in time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2018)

toobfreak said:


> To say that time never began (was always there) is the same as saying that space was always there, which violates every accepted principle of the creation of the universe


100%wrong, and Hawkings's entire point is that it vilates the conditions og the iniverse to claim there was a beginning, in our frame.


Indeependent said:


> Thanks for proving you didn’t read the article.
> It states explicitly there is no proof for the theory.


That was, of course, referring to experimental proof. So settle down.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > To say that time never began (was always there) is the same as saying that space was always there, which violates every accepted principle of the creation of the universe
> ...


You jumped the gun and screwed yourself.
A simple concession will set everything right.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> You jumped the gun and screwed yourself.


I did not. What I said was accurate, and you are confused.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > You jumped the gun and screwed yourself.
> ...


Bullshit.
You said the article said it's now provable not expecting anyone here to actually read it.
I read it and it says there's no mathematical...you're full of shit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> You said the article said it's now provable


That is not at all what I said. I said mathematical solutions have been found. And that is accurate; they have.



Indeependent said:


> I read it and it says there's no mathematical


Apparently you didn't read carefully enough, because the article actually says there is no "raw physics" to support the idea, which is a reference to experimental evidence.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Mar 5, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> > `
> ...


Infinity is real and can be represented in mathmatics when x or y can  has no limit on it's answers. this happens in many equations.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Mar 5, 2018)

Dan Stubbs said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > There will be much discussion of this.
> ...


This problem is solved by the multivers. If you do cahnge some thing in the past it just flips you into the ubiverse where it did happen but the orrignal universe still exists. I am not statring this as law it is just theory as is all of it when talking about the beginig of the ubiverse.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Mar 5, 2018)

ScienceRocks said:


> We have so much to learn. I don't think killing off all science funding and accepting a 2,000 year old religion is going to help us find the answers to these questions either.


Hell right now we are not even sure the laws of physics are the same from one galaxy to another. Sure is interesting to think about.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Mar 5, 2018)

toobfreak said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > There will be much discussion of this.
> ...


Hawking is not an ass! Every one makes mistakes with absolutely no exceptions. He is not calling this law it is theory in a direction he is currently leaning, a good bit of theory could be dispelled real soon with the new telescope that is going up. It is a guess just like all theories presented in this subject. His is just a more educated guess than most.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > You said the article said it's now provable
> ...


Oh, I read the article and the sound bite you just posted.
I also read the line you made up out of your ass.
Posting bullshit is a bitch isn't, especially when the article you Linked stated there's no mathematical formula


----------



## evenflow1969 (Mar 5, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > gtopa1 said:
> ...


Theory is a huge advancement. Most every thing we currently know about electricity is currently theory. How ever this theory is working when we build products.  So not proven but still yeilding wonderfull advancements in our lives.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

evenflow1969 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


There's like a theory for every damn PhD out there; that's how they stay employed.


----------



## Selivan (Mar 5, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Oh, I read the article and the sound bite you just posted.
> I also read the line you made up out of your ass.
> Posting bullshit is a bitch isn't, especially when the article you Linked stated there's no mathematical formula


You better not hide your mustache ...
Grow a beard like a goat ... This will suit you.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Mar 5, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Not every theory is a huge advancement but some are!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> especially when the article you Linked stated there's no mathematical formula



First of all, I didnt link any articles. Secondly, the article linked in the OP (to which I assume you are referring, with your rabid, impotent anger causing your error) neither states nor implies any such thing. You literally pulled every word of that out of your ass.

Look, we get it: you have no idea what the article means to convey, and you dont know fact one about any of this. Instead of throwing a little fit, just pay attention. You just might learn something


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> There's like a theory for every damn PhD out there; that's how they stay employed.


  Those are hypotheses, not scientific theories.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > There's like a theory for every damn PhD out there; that's how they stay employed.
> ...


Are they “mathematically provable”?


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > especially when the article you Linked stated there's no mathematical formula
> ...


Bulllllllshitttttt...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


You are embarrassing yourself...no more responses for you ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2018)

gtopa1 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


Not sure. Why do you ask?


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Look dickhead, you said you read it and it said it’s provable and now you’re trying not to look like the bullshit artist you are.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Mar 5, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



It's the science forum, you're looking for The Rubber Room or The Angry For No Reason forum.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


He came in here already rabid, swinging with both hands, because he sensed some sort of slight to his pet, magical paradigm. Let him flail and embarrass himself...


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

IsaacNewton said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I'm looking for people who don't spew bullshit on every Thread like you two do.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


No problem...your post and my response are there for all to read.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2018)

Religious nuttery aside....

According to the ideas presented by Hawking, if you were able to travel back in time, you would never reach the beginning. Simlarly, in either the 'big rip' or 'big crunch' scenarios, you will never reach the end (going forward), either.

Therefore, the universe always has been and always will be, despite not being infinite. Boundless, yes. Infinite? No.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Mar 5, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 5, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Religious nuttery aside....
> 
> According to the ideas presented by Hawking, if you were able to travel back in time, you would never reach the beginning. Simlarly, in either the 'big rip' or 'big crunch' scenarios, you will never reach the end (going forward), either.
> 
> Therefore, the universe always has been and always will be, despite not being infinite. Boundless, yes. Infinite? No.


And what makes you think no religion has held this belief for thousands of years already without the "great" Hawkings being around?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> And what makes you think no religion has held this belief


I don't think that at all.


----------



## K9Buck (Mar 5, 2018)

Windparadox said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > So how do you define "nothing"?Greg
> ...



Nonexistence.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 6, 2018)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...


I didn't think that any serious physicist even called it the Big Bang anymore.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Mar 6, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Religious nuttery aside....
> ...


I some time like to beleive that the universe is purley in my own mind and does not realy exist. That way when the rude idiot ass hole beside is being a real ass. I think to myhself that fucker was created by my own mind and it would do no good to brain him. Keeps me out jail and the ass hole alive.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 6, 2018)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > There will be much discussion of this.
> ...



The term actually came from physicist Fred Hoyle who coined the term somewhat in mockery.  Fred was a big believer in a static universe.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 6, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Religious nuttery aside....
> ...




They have.  You might try studying Vedic Science.  Srimad Bhagavatam.  Third Canto, Part Two.  Calculation Of Time From The Atom.  Written thousands of years before western science discovered it.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 6, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Religious nuttery aside....
> 
> According to the ideas presented by Hawking, if you were able to travel back in time, you would never reach the beginning. Simlarly, in either the 'big rip' or 'big crunch' scenarios, you will never reach the end (going forward), either.
> 
> Therefore, the universe always has been and always will be, despite not being infinite. Boundless, yes. Infinite? No.




So, Hawking is saying Fred Hoyle was right all along?  If you travel back in time, you are traveling back through events.  One thing happened before another.  If you keep traveling back, there has to be a point where no events happened before the last one, but you cannot reach that point because space and energy has contracted to a point where you couldn't exist.  So it is a useless thought experiment------  as you go back far enough, space and time change, and eventually even the physical laws change, so it is pointless to say that time and space never had a beginning, that is like saying YOU never had a beginning!  Because if you go back far enough to your birth, before that you have your conception, before that you were an egg and a sperm, and before that you were a ham sandwich, and before that, you were some plants and sunlight, and before that you were atoms exploding in a star millions of light years away.  So technically looking at it the Hawking way, you had no beginning either, no boundaries, only changed ones.  Hawking's only real point is the one on his head just to sell another book.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 6, 2018)

toobfreak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Exactly my point.
Fart Moron In Diana always assumes that anyone who believes in God has some archaic view of the universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 6, 2018)

toobfreak said:


> there has to be a point where no events happened before the last one


Hawking is saying that point simply does not exist


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 6, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > there has to be a point where no events happened before the last one
> ...


His opinion and he’s incorrect.
You keep forgetting that math and physics weren’t invented 100 years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 6, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> His opinion and he’s incorrect.


By what argument is he incorrect? Before you answer, you should be made aware that the physics community generally agrees with this idea. Again, the news here (for the layman) is the use of imaginary time to resolve the dilemma.

So please, regale us with your expert arguments that refute Stephen Hawking.

Or, you could save youself the embarrassment and just be honest by admitting that the ONLY reason you disagree with Hawking is because the claim does not align with your religious superstitions.



Indeependent said:


> You keep forgetting that math and physics weren’t invented 100 years ago.



Actually, quantum mechanics and the math used to understand it was, indeed, only discovered (physics is not "invented", ya goober) about 100 years ago.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 6, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > His opinion and he’s incorrect.
> ...


I think it's great that the scientific community will accept and possibility that furthers the advancement of mankind.

"you should be made aware that the physics community generally agrees with this idea"
Wow!  I'm *shocked*!
Can you imagine the shit that a Hawkings dissenter would take?

It's not against my religious beliefs at all because I have a long way to go before I totally understand the myriad interpretations of the Creation account.
On the other hand, I don't suck Stephen Hawking's penis every 3 months when he says something contradictory to what he said 5 years ago.
And yes, the man has changed his mind on a number of his theories a number of times.
He has the right to do this but I don't suck up to him.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 6, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, the man has changed his mind on a number of his theories a number of times.
> ...


You are correct, Mr. Hawkings "Make Money for my Nurse Aides" monthly theories these days are for weak minded.
He knows no one has the balls to tell him to fuck off.
By the way, the Aristotelians made his claim a few thousand years ago.
But what did those atheists know?


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 6, 2018)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...


/——/ And watch the Long Island Railroad use this as an excuse for running late.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 6, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> You are correct, Mr. Hawkings "Make Money for my Nurse Aides" monthly theories these days are for weak minded.
> He knows no one has the balls to tell him to fuck off.


 First of all, this is not only Hawking's idea, as he is joined by other physicists in his work.

Secondly,  scientists deal in ideas, not cults of personality.  If someone were to disagree, they would disagree with a statement and then present evidence against that statement, not against Stephen Hawking.

Of course, the Arostotelians never made the claim that the universe 'is unbounded and finite, therefore you could never reach the beginning, and this could be resolved using imaginary time'.  Not ever.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 6, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > You are correct, Mr. Hawkings "Make Money for my Nurse Aides" monthly theories these days are for weak minded.
> ...


This is how is make real scientists laugh when it comes to Hawkings...
If he's so damn brilliant, how come he can't design a device that makes his voice sound like a voice.
You can't imagine how people laugh their asses off about that question.
In phony robot voice..."I'm Stephen Hawkings and I predict the world will implode in 700,000 years but I can't design a f*ing machine to make me sound like a human...now wipe my arse, I thing I just made a doody."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 6, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> This is how is make real scientists laugh when it comes to Hawkings...
> If he's so damn brilliant, how come he can't design a device that makes his voice sound like a voice.


You're not making yourself sound very smart, here...


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 6, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > This is how is make real scientists laugh when it comes to Hawkings...
> ...


A physicist can't design a realistic sounding voice box but can describe the universe?
Good rebuttal there!


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 6, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Actually, Hawking has turned down better, more modern voice emulators because he feels the one he uses has become synonymous with being identified with him, so, it was his choice to keep using it.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 6, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > You are correct, Mr. Hawkings "Make Money for my Nurse Aides" monthly theories these days are for weak minded.
> ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 6, 2018)

toobfreak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Inappropriate response... no scientist would agree something is correct, just because one of those men said it.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I see you don't live in the real world.
Try it sometimes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


You seem to know less than nothing abiut science or the scientific process. Your opinions on either are worth the same...less than nothing.


----------



## hadit (Mar 7, 2018)

ScienceRocks said:


> We have so much to learn. I don't think killing off all science funding and accepting a 2,000 year old religion is going to help us find the answers to these questions either.



Thank God no one is doing that.


----------



## hadit (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Politics =/= religion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

hadit said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > We have so much to learn. I don't think killing off all science funding and accepting a 2,000 year old religion is going to help us find the answers to these questions either.
> ...


Only because you don't have it your way


----------



## hadit (Mar 7, 2018)

Windparadox said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > So how do you define "nothing"?Greg
> ...



Therein lies our bias. We can't imagine true nothing, so we postulate that time had to exist.


----------



## hadit (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > ScienceRocks said:
> ...



I would say that you're completely wrong, or that you know nothing about me and thus are completely wrong, or that your hatred has rendered you incapable of understanding others' motivations and thus are completely wrong, but my experience with those who hate like you do indicate that it would be a complete waste of time.

You're simply incapable of conceiving of those of faith who also appreciate and champion scientific advancement. This despite the fact that, until the last century or so, most scientific advancement came from those of faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

hadit said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


I was just teasin'. 

By the way, most of everything came from people of faith back then. So you dont really have a point, there.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


How many billion dollar satellites and they cannot predict the weather more than 15 minutes ahead of time.
Yes, I was checking weather.com all morning and they didn’t know my town was going to be hit until 10:00AM.
Ah, the infallibility of science!
God is laughing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> How many billion dollar satellites and they cannot predict the weather more than 15 minutes ahead of time


Ridiculous anti-science talking point, and completely wrong to boot. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > How many billion dollar satellites and they cannot predict the weather more than 15 minutes ahead of time
> ...


You’re just an Internet PhD.
You won’t discuss your credentials other than you’re an atheist.
That’s *not* a credential.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


None of the truth of any of this depends on my credentials or on what Baby Jaysus had for breakfast. You really need to get that through your thick yarmulke.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Your *understanding* of information *is* relevent to any discussion.


----------



## hadit (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Sure I do. It is that faith and science are not incompatible.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


And my credentials dont determine that, either. Just give it up...I am immune to your religious nutball talking points.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

hadit said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Of course,  they do not overlap.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


An I am immune to you Linking to a web site that you don't understand simply because you like the headline.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Because the weather report is correct...*sometimes*.
But *you* have *faith* based in it's consistent, measurable, inaccuracy


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Yes, get it all out of your system, crybaby... I can take it...


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Base on your posts, you *can't* take it.
I'm just wondering which of your religious leaders, or religion teachers. molested you as a child.


----------



## hadit (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Actually, several Biblical writers displayed a grasp of science the "modern" world didn't discover until just recently.  Things like light before stars, the hydrological cycle, life in the sea before land, rabbits being ruminants, etc.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

hadit said:


> Actually, several Biblical writers displayed a grasp of science the "modern" world didn't discover until just recently. Things like light before stars, the hydrological cycle, life in the sea before land, rabbits being ruminants, etc.


That is not a "grasp of science"...are you mad? Science is a process. Those were ignorant philosophers recylcing old myths. For every myth that accidentally resembled some bit of hard-earned scientific knowledge, there were thousands that remain utter horseshit. So to think there is anything in play here besides a bit of coincidence and a lot of mental gymnastics on your part is folly.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 7, 2018)

Your feelings about Jesus has nothing to do with the discussion.

Faith should be laughed at in any real science discussion as we're attempting to have a evidence based on discussion.


----------



## hadit (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, several Biblical writers displayed a grasp of science the "modern" world didn't discover until just recently. Things like light before stars, the hydrological cycle, life in the sea before land, rabbits being ruminants, etc.
> ...


It was funny watching "modern" science mock the fact that rabbits are ruminants and that light existed before stars until they were forced to admit they were wrong.  So, which old myth informed the writer that talked about the hydrological cycle?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

hadit said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


The writer, of course, knew exactly nothing about the early universe or the hydrological cycle. They said and wrote mountains of utterly absurd things, and doing mental gymnastics to try to snap-fit their absurd nonsense to hard earned scientific knowledge is a ridiculous hobby. Enjoy.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You're saying the ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks and Romans didn't have a grasp of advanced math and applied methods of accomplishing enormous tasks like irrigation and building structures?
You are an arrogant ass who obviously cherry picks the sites you read.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> You're saying the ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks and Romans didn't have a grasp of advanced math and applied methods of accomplishing enormous tasks like irrigation and building structures


No, and I have no idea where you got this.  How about, you religious freaks keep each other occupied and let the adults talk for a while?


----------



## hadit (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



The arrogance of the modern mind, pretending anything we discover was never thought of before.


----------



## hadit (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



So, you don't have a myth then? Just made it up? One thinks you don't even know what passage I'm talking about.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > You're saying the ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks and Romans didn't have a grasp of advanced math and applied methods of accomplishing enormous tasks like irrigation and building structures
> ...


Ever try reading what you post?
What does religion have to do with the fact that there are so many Observant Jews winning Nobel Prizes in Science on an annual basis?


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

hadit said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Phart Moron In Diana's MO is to never present his own ideas.
He provides a Link and thinks he has some insight that others lack.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

The Hawking lecture on this matter. Worth the read:

The Beginning of TIme


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Hawkings says nothing new here.
The Universe has a beginning.
The beginning defies the Laws of Physics.
The Universe will stop growing and implode.
Seriously, what's new?
My Rabbis have discussed this a million times.
What doesn't match the Genesis story?
Why am I finding Phart to be stupider with every post?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Seriously, what's new?


Introducing imaginary time which is finite yet boundless to resolve a dilemma of big bang theory.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, what's new?
> ...


Because the *initiation* of the process *defies* the Laws of Physics, so does the *end* of the process.
When you don't believe in Scripture (not the way Christians study it) this seems to be a new idea...it isn't.
By the way, *time* doesn't exist and *we* don't exist.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2018)

hadit said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> > gtopa1 said:
> ...


Do you know our sun may have once had a sister star? And the earth may be a second generation planet. The truth is so much more interesting


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Because the *initiation* of the process *defies* the Laws of Physics, so does the *end* of the process.


The inflationary epoch does not violate any laws of physics.  In fact, its very existence in the theory is necessary, due to the laws of physics.  Looks like the scripture wrong all along


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Windparadox said:
> ...


The Earth *did *have a sister star and the Earth may be a 2nd generation planet...Zohar.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Because the *initiation* of the process *defies* the Laws of Physics, so does the *end* of the process.
> ...


Read the article, the Big Bang and it's resultant initial expansion defied the Laws of Physics.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Because the *initiation* of the process *defies* the Laws of Physics, so does the *end* of the process.
> ...


Christians don't have a good translation of the Torah to read.
The KJV is a horror.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> Do you know our sun may have once had a sister star?


Like, a binary?  No... I think we have ruled that out.  But it would  likely have had nearby stars in its original nebula.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


I did read the article, and it is not being claimed that they violated the laws of physics.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


There’s no scientific argument for the new or Old Testament. Christianity is just a spin off. Look how hard it is to be a Jew. How hard is it to join the gentile club?


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



"The no boundary condition, is the statement that the laws of physics hold everywhere. Clearly, this is something that one would like to believe, but it is a hypothesis. One has to test it, by comparing the state of the universe that it would predict, with observations of what the universe is actually like. If the observations disagreed with the predictions of the no boundary hypothesis, we would have to conclude the hypothesis was false. There would have to be something outside the universe, to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going. Of course, even if the observations do agree with the predictions, that does not prove that the no boundary proposal is correct. But one's confidence in it would be increased, particularly because there doesn't seem to be any other natural proposal, for the quantum state of the universe. "
Unfortunately, 90% of the speech is rehash and quite boring.
I'll admit that I'm half asleep by the time he gets to any point.
But people who make money from speeches o have to flesh out the time.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Because Jews produce way more scientists than any other group by percent.
We just suck at science because of the 18 years of Torah study.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> I'll admit that I'm half asleep by the time he gets to any point.


Judging by your comments on this topic, I think that is probably because you don't have the slightest idea what he is saying.  That's not personal, it just is what it is, my man.

And no, the claim was not made that those things violated the laws pf physics.  See?  That is what I am talking about.

Look dude, i wish you all the best, but i  think I am done wasting my time correcting every wrong thing you say.  Knock yourself out.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I find the non-Jewish life style to be empty and boring.
Movies, restaurants, sports, exceeding credit card limits for transient emptiness.
In fact, since my wife started learning also our relationship has become more about how to understand people then when the next episode of a TV show is on.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > I'll admit that I'm half asleep by the time he gets to any point.
> ...


I know exactly what he's talking about and that's exactly why I wish he'd get to the f*ing point.
He spends over 90% of the speech knowing he has a captive audience, and it's freaking annoying.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > I'll admit that I'm half asleep by the time he gets to any point.
> ...


"However, I now realise I was wrong, as these solutions show. The collapse is not the time reverse of the expansion. The expansion will start with an inflationary phase, but the collapse will not in general end with an anti inflationary phase. Moreover, the small departures from uniform density will continue to grow in the contracting phase. The universe will get more and more lumpy and irregular, as it gets smaller, and disorder will increase. This means that the arrow of time will not reverse. People will continue to get older, even after the universe has begun to contract. So it is no good waiting until the universe re-collapses, to return to your youth. You would be a bit past it, anyway, by then. 

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now."
No dude, you should have stopped *15 minutes ago*.
What a difficult article!
How could simple little me understand this complicated (not!) stuff?

What's so revolutionary about this?
In 2 years when he needs money again, he'll simply state, "However, I now realise I was wrong, as these solutions show."
You'll fall for anything the guy says.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


But at least you woke me up.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Well I was raised in the Greek American community so I can relate if you are referring to white Americans. The kind that when you ask them where their family is from they say Kentucky or England. Or they are mutts. Moms irish dads German.

You don’t like movies and restaurants or sports? Too bad. Lots of fun stuff.

So do you sit around reading the Torah wasting your life? Do you at least make love? Tell me you Bang a lot I will respect you greatly.

My family is rich and/or frugal. I’m a little of both. But we play on the lake in the winter on the water in the summer and up north on our property during deer season. I find my life very pleasurable but I’m not in debt


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2018)

Can Hawkins give us the exact time that time started snd was it am or pm


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can Hawkins give us the exact time that time started snd was it am or pm


Mathematically they can tell you the exact second the Big Bang occurred and they’ve broken down what happened in that second. They broke the second into millionths. I believe they have a machine in cern, Switzerland that can recreate the Big Bang. It’s huge. Watch how the universe works


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can Hawkins give us the exact time that time started snd was it am or pm


Fort loves science because it's *observable* and *provable*.
Fort loves Hawkings because, as Hawkings said, *none* of his *theories* are *observable* or *provable*.
And if you're now saying, "WTF!", I'm right there with you.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can Hawkins give us the exact time that time started snd was it am or pm
> ...


You got a Link?
Google isn't helpful on this one.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

Hawking: "*The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth, or so I'm told.* "


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


How the universe works. The first second episode. Impossible you can’t find it


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2018)

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


I found it quickly. Are you sure you tried?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> I found it quickly. Are you sure you tried?


Look, let me spare you  this trolling:

You are not sure what he is demanding from you, and he knows this. So he will do what he is doing right now for 30 pages, if you will come along.  This is how he makes himself feel like he has won., when he goes, "haha!  Told ya!"... just let him flail, when he gets like this...


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can Hawkins give us the exact time that time started snd was it am or pm


It’s very simple math. They know what the universe looked like 100,000 years after the Big Bang. Based on the math they can tell you when the Big Bang happened. They can even account for excelleration. 

Now how do they do this? I don’t know exactly I’m not a scientist but I’m also not a skeptic.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I found it quickly. Are you sure you tried?
> ...


Do you think he understands Planck time? Wow cause I sure dont.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


The amount of time light takes to travel a Planck length?  It's , in essence, a "quantum" of time, for us.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Mar 7, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> Absurd.  The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking.  Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.[/QUOTE
> 
> A clock is round. There is no beginning nor ending.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Not a google?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Planck Time – Energy


----------



## westwall (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > There is a plethora of evidence that the universe had a beginning and ZERO evidence that it is eternal.
> ...









Time is a dimension, or have you forgotten that.  How can you have time, when no other dimensions exist?  Hawking is wrong more often than he is correct, so the fact that he postulates this thought doesn't make it so....


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I apologize; I missed the end of your last post.
I found it.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It's good to have a career like a meteorologist or a theoretical physicist where nothing you say has to be true.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

westwall said:


> How can you have time, when no other dimensions exist?


For one, there is no singularity at the beginning. Second, you don't necessarily have time, you have imaginary time. Read the whole lecture. 

The rest of your post was used car salesman-like...  and lighten up Francis, it's just a proposal.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can Hawkins give us the exact time that time started snd was it am or pm
> ...


Thanks to Hubble, scientists are getting very close to the actual age of the universe and will be able reverse engineer the beginning as best they can.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How can you have time, when no other dimensions exist?
> ...


"imaginary time"...*not* observable!
How *Godly* of you!


----------



## westwall (Mar 8, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How can you have time, when no other dimensions exist?
> ...








"Imaginary time" is NOT time.  That's my point....and I did.


----------



## hadit (Mar 8, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Windparadox said:
> ...



That's why I love science. It bolsters my faith.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 8, 2018)

hadit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


When you see how everything worked out perfectly for our solar system and we see no other systems like ours, I can see how people’s instincts would lead them to believe in divine intervention but then as a scientist we see that we won’t always be in the sweet spot. Mars may have harbored life before us. And there may be living organisms in Europa.

And we really don’t know enough about other solar systems to be able to say. It may be life eventually pops up around most stars. Maybe 5 billion years ago and maybe 5 billion in the future.

I just don’t assume a god did anything. I’d rather look for how something was done naturally


----------



## hadit (Mar 8, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I don't really have an opinion about life elsewhere in the universe, but yes, when I see the astronomical odds against even a hemoglobin molecule randomly assembling itself, it does strengthen my faith.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 8, 2018)

hadit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Well I don't know about "random" assembly but I do know when the conditions are right life takes hold.

When a star blows up it spews all the elements needed into the universe.  This is how our solar system came to be.  

Elements Of Life Discovered Everywhere In The Milky Way

Europa, Jupiter's icy moon, meets not one but two of the critical requirements for life, scientists say.

the ocean regularly receives influxes of the energy required for life via chaotic processes near the moon's surface.

These dynamic lakes, which melt and refreeze over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, lie beneath as much as 50 percent of Europa's surface

Europa's liquid water ocean "meets one of the critical requirements for life," Hoehler said, noting that its ocean chemistry is believed to be suitable for sustaining living things. "And what you're hearing about today from Britney bears on a second crucial requirement, and that is the requirement for energy."

The genesis of life on Earth is thought to have required some sort of injection of energy into the ocean perhaps from a lightning strike. And during the 3.8 billion years since then, life's existence has depended on the continuous influx of energy from the sun.

Europan life isn't a done deal just yet, though. Water and energy aren't the only ingredients on the checklist for life , and scientists aren't sure whether Europa has the others, such as the necessary organic chemicals.

What would life on Europa do for your faith?  Why?


----------



## westwall (Mar 8, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...









We are in the sweet spot for _our_ type of life form.  I find it amusing that people who claim to be "into science" harbor this belief that ours is the only type of life that there could be.


----------



## Windparadox (Mar 8, 2018)

westwall said:


> We are in the sweet spot for _our_ type of life form.  I find it amusing that people who claim to be "into science" harbor this belief that ours is the only type of life that there could be.


`
Depends on how one defines "life" such as only sentient and sapient beings. Life as we "_don't know it_" may exist far beyond such confining definitions.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 8, 2018)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Then you didn't disagree with hawking


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 8, 2018)

GOD is invisible and lacks dimension.


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 8, 2018)

Windparadox said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > We are in the sweet spot for _our_ type of life form.  I find it amusing that people who claim to be "into science" harbor this belief that ours is the only type of life that there could be.
> ...



Silicon based instead of carbon based.





Greg


----------



## hadit (Mar 8, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



It wouldn't impact my faith a whole lot. It sure wouldn't be damaged because my faith doesn't depend on life being exclusive to earth.

It's a faith based statement to just gloss over the complexities of life by saying "when conditions are right, life takes hold".  We don't know that to be true yet. That ignores the vast complexity of even the simplest of single celled organisms. 

Now, if you do not accept that hemoglobin randomly assembled itself, what intelligent design conceived of it, put it together, and made it useful to organisms that previously had no need for it?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 9, 2018)

hadit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Well, we know that life can stand much colder and hotter temperatures than we can. And we used to think life needed sunlight but that’s not true. It’s why we believe Europa has life in it.

Nothing ever proves or disproves the god hypothesis


----------



## hadit (Mar 9, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



We believe it MAY have life on it. We just don't know yet.


----------



## harmonica (Mar 9, 2018)

no one has any idea on any of this stuff....it is beyond even our imagination


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 9, 2018)

gtopa1 said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Perhaps, but two things: 

1) Carbon is nor plentiful
2) Carbon is more reactive


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 9, 2018)

Windparadox said:


> Life as we "_don't know it_" may exist far beyond such confining definitions.


True! But we arent going to search for that life for quite a long time, because we might not know it as life if we tripped over it. So we search for life as we do know it, in the interest of efficiency.


----------



## Windparadox (Mar 10, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> True! But we arent going to search for that life for quite a long time, because we might not know it as life if we tripped over it. So we search for life as we do know it, in the interest of efficiency.


`
Who is "we?"
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2018)

Windparadox said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > True! But we arent going to search for that life for quite a long time, because we might not know it as life if we tripped over it. So we search for life as we do know it, in the interest of efficiency.
> ...


Royal "we"...humans.


----------



## Windparadox (Mar 10, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Royal "we"...humans.


`
In other words, just you. Ok.
`


----------



## MindWars (Mar 10, 2018)

From the mouth of a gawd dam Atheist what else would the loon say.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2018)

Windparadox said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Royal "we"...humans.
> ...


No, and I didn't decide it, and no idea why the snark. This is what scientists say and do, and unless you are fashioning methods and equipment to look for life elsewhere on your own, what they do IS what "we" humans do.

So, to review: Out of efficiency, we will look for life as we know it. Therefore, we will look for liquid water and for indirect evidence, like atmospheric methane.

Unless, of course, you have a better idea.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2018)

MindWars said:


> From the mouth of a gawd dam Atheist what else would the loon say.


Hey idiot...we're searching for your abductors, remember? So shut up and let us search.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 24, 2019)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...



Where did everything come from? Empty space or the empty vacuum of space is full of electro magnetic fields and charged quantum particles and anti particles. Space is full of virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

No question they are real. So nothing is never nothing. Even nothing is something.

The Big Bang turned energy into matter. Einstein said energy and matter are two sides of the same coin.

We don’t know what caused the Big Bang. We only know what happened hundreds of thousands of years later. 

The universe is flat. Could the super rapid growth of the universe and flatness be connected? 

Inflation solves these two questions. Inflation must have broke a law of physics. Travel faster than the speed of light.

Everyone thinks the universe is expanding into nothingness. There was no outside of the universe. Space can stretch and expand as fast as it wants. Faster than the speed of light. 

We don’t know what caused inflation? We don’t know. Inflation didn’t last very long. It stopped. How? We don’t know.

But has it really stopped? Maybe inflation is creating other universes? We are just one bubble. Multiverse is real

We may even bump into other universes and merge into one. 

There’s a spot in space that’s the coldest biggest spot in spac. This may be the proof we merged with another universe based on the microwave evidence


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 24, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > There will be much discussion of this.
> ...


/——/ All very nice theories - but nothing more.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 24, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Well,just by virtue of being plausible and consistent with the evidence and not requiring magic, they are "something more" than "god done did it!"


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 24, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


True, for now


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 25, 2019)

What happens when a man goes one second left or right into the 2 dimensional time Stephen Hawkings spoke about - and why has this time on its own for us only less than 1 dimension = 1 direction?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 25, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Well scientists have discovered our universe, on a grand scale, is flat. That suggests a lot. Can you tell us what a flat universe might mean? 

I’m going to guess you haven’t a clue. And like flat earthers you probably don’t believe because to you the universe looks round. 

And god forbid you even consider multiverse exist. Why does this theory threaten you?


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...



Then you need space to be always there.  One cannot separate space and time.  This was debunked with the steady state theory.

steady-state theory | Definition & Facts


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Well scientists have discovered our universe, on a grand scale, is flat. That suggests a lot. Can you tell us what a flat universe might mean?



It means science backs up the Bible.  The universe is described as a scroll.  Thus, it has a boundary or edges and curves (up is my opinion) and space time curves at the boundary.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > There will be much discussion of this.
> ...


Um..that hypothesis has been discredited. You should read up on stuff you don't understand before regurgitating it from your creationist blogger liars.


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



That atheist science theory has been debunked as I stated.  Thus, they were wrong again.  Now, the atheist scientists have replaced it with BBT and it's still hypothesis that should be discredited and has already.  Your fave creation science website states that the order of events is wrong and is a "mechanistic" view to explain how an universe came into existence without God the creator.  At least, you have to admit the universe had a "beginning" and that is another piece of evidence for God.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> That atheist science theory has been debunked as I stated.


No idiot, you referred to the wrong hypothesis.  Read more slowly.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Well scientists have discovered our universe, on a grand scale, is flat. That suggests a lot. Can you tell us what a flat universe might mean?
> ...



Science doesn’t back up ancient fears and superstitions.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



You have never explained how the gods came into being without an endless hierarchy of creator gods. 

You have arbitrarily replaced the endless hierarchy of creator gods with three gods for conveniences sake. 

That’s poor cricket, laddie.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Well scientists have discovered our universe, on a grand scale, is flat. That suggests a lot. Can you tell us what a flat universe might mean?
> ...



The Bibles also suggest a flat Earth. Clearly that was a prominent view by many at the time. 

That would suggest that your use of the Bibles as science texts leaves you lacking.


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

Basically, the big bang is based on three pieces of evidence.  One, is the microwave radiations coming in from all directions.  This radiated heat is interpreted as left over heat from a big fireball that started everthing off.  It sounds like there should have been an explosion, but they have changed it to expansion.  However, this radiated heat does not explain how our universe is.  Our universe is clumpy, i.e. has places of stars, moons, suns, planets, etc and places where there aren't.  There are also "walls" between galaxies and a great void between them.  The radiation should also be clumpy or uneven, but it is considered even.  It means that the evidence shows that universe isn't even like the radiated heat.  It means the BBT is wrong.  Thus, the atheist scientists are trying to find the radiation as uneven.  This is one of the findings that goes to show the BBT is in trouble, but the media doesn't report it (since it goes against evolutionary thinking) and thus is more BS philosophy that evos have "faith" in believing.


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> You have never explained how the gods came into being without an endless hierarchy of creator gods.



I can't help it you can't read and understand William Lane Craig's Kalam's Cosmological argument.



Hollie said:


> The Bibles also suggest a flat Earth. Clearly that was a prominent view by many at the time.



It's not the Bible nor me, but you.  Maybe you are like you because your mother was a flat earther.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Basically, the big bang is based on three pieces of evidence.  One, is the microwave radiations coming in from all directions.  This radiated heat is interpreted as left over heat from a big fireball that started everthing off.  It sounds like there should have been an explosion, but they have changed it to expansion.  However, this radiated heat does not explain how our universe is.  Our universe is clumpy, i.e. has places of stars, moons, suns, planets, etc and places where there aren't.  There are also "walls" between galaxies and a great void between them.  The radiation should also be clumpy or uneven, but it is considered even.  It means that the evidence shows that universe isn't even like the radiated heat.  It means the BBT is wrong.  Thus, the atheist scientists are trying to find the radiation as uneven.  This is one of the findings that goes to show the BBT is in trouble, but the media doesn't report it (since it goes against evolutionary thinking) and thus is more BS philosophy that evos have "faith" in believing.



That confused, rambling nonsense is right out of the fundamentalist ministries. 

You even threw in a “media won’t report it” conspiracy theory. Such paranoid thinking is pretty typical for the fundie zealots.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You have never explained how the gods came into being without an endless hierarchy of creator gods.
> ...



William Lane Craig is an irrelevant charlatan. 

I see your best Christian behavior is being discarded in favor of your usual Christian behavior.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


/——-/ My bible says the is Earth is not round but oblate spheroid.  Earth's shape also changes over time due to a menagerie of other dynamic factors. Mass shifts around inside the planet, altering those gravitational anomalies. Mountains and valleys emerge and disappear due to plate tectonics. Occasionally meteors crater the surface.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 25, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



You must have one of those new-fangled, new-wave bibles because none of the other versions identify an oblate spheroid. 

That, of course, begs the question; why didn’t the gods get editing rights to the Bible’s that we know were written by men who obviously did think the earth was flat? 

Were the gods just too busy with their administrative duties?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


The Bible says everything and that means it contradicts itself. 

We’ve all heard bible believers debate the Bible said this than the other one comes back and says yea but the Bible also says.

Except it doesn’t say the universe is flat. And even if it did, how did they come up with this knowledge before telescopes? 

And why did the idea of the universe threaten the early church? 

They don’t get to change what they used to claim.

The earth is flat, the earth is fixed and everything revolves around us. We are the center of the universe.

I can’t believe the guy would claim a flat universe is evidence for the Bible when they can’t show us the evidence they used to come up with a flat universe.

Not buying it


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Funny because Christians before Christopher Columbus swore the earth was flat.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 25, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


If the original Bible says the earth is a oblate spheroid, why did Christians in the year 100 ad, 200ad, 800ad, 1200ad, etc.....all thought the earth was flat. 

First of all did people 2000 years ago know the term oblate spheroid?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 25, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


And who taught you all of that? The Bible, or science? Easy answer.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


He’s using science he likes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 25, 2019)

IsaacNewton said:


> Hawking though would now have to explain if there is something outside of our universe.


Hawking is saying: maybe yes. Maybe no. And that it may make no difference, to what we observe. But it may. 

He is saying that there does exist a mathematical solution that can result in boundless spacetime, even when there is the appearance that it "began" to those within.


----------



## james bond (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Except it doesn’t say the universe is flat. And even if it did, how did they come up with this knowledge before telescopes?



It just goes to show sealybobo has no idea about the Bible.  First and foremost, it is God's word so that is the _ultimate_ knowledge.  It says the universe is like a scroll.  Ancient peoples would understand this just like we do today.  A scroll is flat, curved at the top and bottom edges and is bounded.  Science showed that the universe is flat when many thought it was saddle shaped.  The creation scientists are waiting for the curved edges to be shown as the curvature of space time and the bounded universe with edges at the boundary.  It means that our galaxy is at the center and not centerless.

I can only hope that sealybobo believes in God one day and realizes that if God created the universe and everything in it, then this isn't the real world.  It's God's world that is the real world and this is just an illusion.  This is all in the mind.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Mar 26, 2019)

Hawking was wrong !!

Time also cannot come from nothing


----------



## james bond (Mar 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And who taught you all of that? The Bible, or science? Easy answer.



It was in the Bible first.  My theory is the low brow internet atheists made up "flat earthers" to describe their parents.  We know that even in Columbus' day that people didn't believe the Earth was flat.

At least the flat earthers are only wrong about the Earth being flat.  The atheists are wrong about practically everything else and will lose everything in the end and you Fort Fun Indiana will know what a billion years is watching to see if abiogenesis happens.


----------



## james bond (Mar 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Hawking though would now have to explain if there is something outside of our universe.
> ...



Why is atheist science the complete opposite of creation science?  It's 180 degrees different.  The Bible states that it is a bounded universe and spacetime curves at the edges of the two sides.  This means the universe is bounded and has the Milky Way as the center (galactocentric).  It means only one of us can be right and so far God through his Bible is 100% right.  We know Hawking died not being right and now he's being contradicted by others atheist scientists since he's dead.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 26, 2019)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...



Time is just a human construct. It doesn’t actually exist


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Why is atheist science the complete opposite of creation science?  It's 180 degrees different.  The Bible states that it is a bounded universe and spacetime curves at the edges of the two sides.  This means the universe is bounded and has the Milky Way as the center (galactocentric).  It means only one of us can be right and so far God through his Bible is 100% right.  We know Hawking died not being right and now he's being contradicted by others atheist scientists since he's dead.


----------



## james bond (Mar 26, 2019)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Time is just a human construct. It doesn’t actually exist



It has to exist or else spacetime would not be expanding.  In the particle-wave theory, we are seeing a wave.  However, when we stop to observe, the we see a particle because it represents a point in time just like a photograph.



Dont Taz Me Bro said:


>


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> ...Time is just a human construct. It doesn’t actually exist



What means you say _'god is a liar'_.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


/———/ God was preoccupied at the time. The Devil had made up a story about God colluding with Budda to gain control of the universe. Anyway the special prosecutor came up empty handed and God was not impeached as our creator. I think it was in the Book of CNN.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


/——-/ Why yes indeed. Now prove they didn’t


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Cellblock2429 said:
> ...


/——-/ Wrong again Cupcake. 
Answer: It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator...


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> Hawking was wrong !!
> 
> Time also cannot come from nothing


Right. Time has always existed. Pre Big Bang and post Big Bang.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > And who taught you all of that? The Bible, or science? Easy answer.
> ...


You will lose everything in the end too.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Cellblock2429 said:
> ...


After you prove jesus was more than just a man.

The Jews saw him and dont buy the story why should we? When jews convert so will I.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Yes and religion took over and said he was crazy.

Same way they did giordano Bruno who said we were not the center of the universe.

This is insane. Younuts are just nuts


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

Howard stern sent a guy to the flat earth convention. Like the nuts here those nuts have their “facts” down. They are hard to argue with.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > There will be much discussion of this.
> ...


If no humans existed on earth the earth would still take 24 to go around the sun. Other animals wouldn’t be smart enough to do the math but the math still exists


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Except it doesn’t say the universe is flat. And even if it did, how did they come up with this knowledge before telescopes?
> ...


The Bible is gods word? That’s not true but shows how delusional you are. The Bible was written by men who never even met jesus


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Why yes indeed. Now prove they didn’t


I will. What proof would you like?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Cellblock2429 said:
> ...



*Isaac Newton* first proposed that Earth was not perfectly round. Instead, he suggested it was an oblate spheroid—a sphere that is squashed at its poles and swollen at the equator.

No religion first proposed this.  It was Isaac Newton.  The year 1643.  

*KJV*
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
*ESV*
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree.
*NLT*
Then I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds so they did not blow on the earth or the sea, or even on any tree.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


/-----/ "The Bible was written by men who never even met jesus "
Most biographers never met the person they write about. What's your point? 
BTW Jesus is a proper noun and should be capitalized regardless if you believe in him.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2019)

IsaacNewton said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > There will be much discussion of this.
> ...


What Hawking actually said directly from the link,"He tells physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson that amid the almost infinitely small quantum foam of the singularity before the Big Bang, time existed in a 'bent'" state.
It was distorted along another dimension — always getting fractionally closer to, but never becoming, nothing.
*So there never was a Big Bang that created something from nothing*."

The real theory is there is no such thing as nothing!


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2019)

Dan Stubbs said:


> Time is a condition of a current event.


Time exists ONLY in terms of motion. Distance = speed X time or transposed time = distance/speed, for example.


----------



## hadit (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



That's disengenuous. The entire Old Testament was written before He assumed human form as Messiah. There are actually only a few books written by those who met him.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2019)

IsaacNewton said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


No there was always energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so there never was nothing and there never will be nothing.


----------



## hadit (Mar 26, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Let's explore that. All the energy of the universe (because there was no matter) was contained in a singularity that had nothing to restrain it from expanding (because none of the forces, including gravity, existed, even time). Is that what you're saying?

That naturally leads to the inevitable question, what put all that energy in that state if forces like gravity didn't exist to pull it together and hold it?

I think it's at least safe to say there was nothing, and no energy, in the universe because the universe itself didn't exist. The energy then had to come from outside the universe. It had to be placed in that singularity so it could expand. 

And remember, we cannot allow any intelligence to be guiding any of this.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


do You think god cares?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

hadit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


What books?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

hadit said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


Not true.  We now know that deep dark empty space has charged particles that come in and out of existence.  It really is miraculous.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

hadit said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



I think the answer is we don't know.  Do you claim to know?


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

Political Junky said:


> There will be much discussion of this.
> 
> Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking
> 
> ...




Pretty funny.  I actually have studied QT and GUT fairly extensively as I have the life and works of Hawking.  Of course he's dead now, but he began his career essentially confirming, clarifying and establishing the Big Bang, and now in one of his final moments he is saying it never happened!  Of course time had a beginning, it must have, as did the universe, nothing phenomenal can have an infinite quality!  But neither does that mean that there was a time before time.


----------



## james bond (Mar 26, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ...Time is just a human construct. It doesn’t actually exist
> ...



Worst case of quote mining ever .


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > There will be much discussion of this.
> ...



What he was saying is that the big bang may just be the start of our observable universe.

You need to watch this episode:  New discoveries are causing astronomers to question if the Big Bang really happened, and using the latest science, they investigate if it wasn't just the start of our universe but many mysterious multiverses.

Did the Big Bang Really Happen? | How the Universe Works


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Well of course the Big Bang was the start of this observable universe!  That goes without saying!  Before the Big Bang, there was no space and without space you cannot have time.


----------



## james bond (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> You will lose everything in the end too.



What good will material wealth do me after I am gone and ready to start my second life?  It's only here temporarily for us to do something good and fruitful with it and serve the Lord. God provides us with the advantageous position of knowing the Lord.  "17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights,with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." James 1:17


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


You don't know what was before the big bang.  Stop making shit up.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You will lose everything in the end too.
> ...


That's what they tell poor people.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

See also: Visualisation of Bible Contradictions (must read), Argument from the Bible, Criticisms of the Bible, Consistency of the Bible, A Compendium of Disbelief, Deconversion: The Bible and A History of God (both must watch), BBC The History of God.

Origins of the Bible: PBS Buried Secrets, CH4 Who wrote the Bible? (a must watch).

_“Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”_ – Isaac Asimov


*Biblical Jesus was real.*
There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reﬂections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Most biographers never met the person they write about. What's your point?


Most biographers aren't making extraordinary claims of magic or divinity about their subjects ..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Before the Big Bang, there was no space


You could not possibly know this. Thats part of the topic.


----------



## james bond (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



smh.  How wrong can you be?  You missed it before getting to the first turn.  Am I not right that this physical world is all in your mind?  Why can't you take anything with you?  You can be buried with your possessions and still not be able to take it with you.  Once you are gone for good, then you are whisked away immediately to Hades or the land of the dead.  It shows that your life is a spirit.  Your consciousness will still work.  Thus, it is not I who is delusional.  Science backs up God's word and that's what we find.

I asked how can evolution be 180 degrees different from creation science?  The only overlap I see is with natural selection.  There has to be some knowledge of what the Bible says or else how does one explain the differences?  We know the Bible came first and during ancient times.  Yet, it's still relevant today or how else do I win these arguments?  If evolution was valid, then low brow atheists would be able to make a valid argument?  You took a wrong turn right out the gate and seem lost because you've lost God.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Why do you say I'm "making shit up?"  If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows?  All he has is his own theories as well.  Before his illness, he was just an obnoxious, precocious, partying kid.  He was a great laugh at parties.  Besides, all I said is what is widely believed in the industry, the expansion of the Big Bang was the expansion of space and therefore the expansion of the observable dimensions of our universe.  If you knew anything about cosmology, you'd know that.


----------



## james bond (Mar 26, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> > Time is a condition of a current event.
> ...



Close, but no cigar.  Motion exists because of time.  We know this from particle-wave theory.  Space and time had to come first or there would not be quantum or any particles in motion providing energy and entropy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows


Hawking doesnt claim to know. He claims to know only what mathematics show as possible.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Before the Big Bang, there was no space
> ...




You couldn't possibly know what I know.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> You couldn't possibly know what I know.


Wrong. I can be confident you have no magical abilities which elude the rest of us.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > If I can't know then why do you think Hawking or anyone else knows
> ...



Really?  I have Hawking's doctoral thesis as well as the last paper he wrote on the matter before dying, and have read them.  I've been studying QT and all of the people in the field going back to Maxwell and the first theories on the propagation of light.  Have you?  I know exactly what Hawking thought and claimed.  I'm pretty sure YOU DON'T.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > You couldn't possibly know what I know.
> ...



Never said a word about magic, jackass.  Go pick up a book on the topic then get back to me.  I've not claimed anything not widely believed by most in the field, idiot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Who goves a shit what you claim to have read? The arguments and data stand on their own. Your unargued claims stand on nothing.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


funny thing is they dont call it the big bang anymore,,,its now called the big expansion,,,

they had to do that because they proved the big bang was debunked several times


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Every word of that is wrong on every level. And you knew that before you posted it, but you post false shit intentionally for attention. Because you are a troll.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


and yet you provide nothing to prove that,,,

dont get mad at me,,all I did was repeat what evo's claim


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Look cupcake, as usual, you cannot have any sort of intelligent or serious discussion here on USMB because some troll like you comes along every time and attacks anyone who claims to know anything about anything.  I've noticed that is a habit of people who don't know shit about anything!  Worse, people like you always do it with no actual supporting evidence of their own.  I should have known better.  I guess I'm used to discussing topics with actual professionals who are intelligent and educated---- here, any discussion devolves instantly into a pissing contest of insults and personal attacks.  If I ran USMB, I'd throw your ass off.  I moderate elsewhere and simply wouldn't put up with shitheads like you.

I thought I'd throw some thought-provoking dialog in here about space and time for the edification of people curious to know and maybe have some interesting dialog, but you're not interested in discussing it.  You're not interested in debate.  Like every other topic, you think you are right about everything and everyone else is an idiot.  You don't care my background?  My education on the topic?  Every argument and data "stands on its own?"  I've made no argument, presented no data.  You stopped them before they ever began.  I thought I'd try to put forth some basic understanding of some of the fundamental concepts of cosmology, things you can find in a dozen books on the topic and IMMEDIATELY I'm told I can't possibly know that?  I won't waste any further time on you, someone who argues just to argue, without making any actual claim or presenting any data of your own, you have the nerve to tell others what they don't know before they even say anything?  Go jack off, funnyboy.  Now you can tell everyone that I backed down when challenged and ran.  Score one for the asshat.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


When you spend your time trolling fundie Christian ministries, you will be uneducated as to such things as the Big Bang.

That term has long been nothing more than a phrase that developed traction and became a part of the dialogue. It's misleading. Legitimate scientists / astrophysicists,  (obviously excluding the charlatans at your crank fundie ministries), describe a major disruption to time and space followed by the expansion of the universe. 

There is no indication that a magical / supernatural unionized collection of gods had any involvement.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> because some troll like you comes along every time and attacks anyone who claims to know anything about anything


I said you cpuld not possibly know what you claimed as true. That wasn't a perspnal attack. But you immediately went full retard as though it was. So, piss off, crybaby.


----------



## hadit (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I know you're eager to say the gospels weren't written as first hand accounts, but the first three, and the book of Revelation, were. Like was written by the doctor who accompanied Paul on his trips. It is possible that Paul actually met Jesus in the flesh, but he didn't mention it, and that would have been something he probably would have.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

hadit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


No they weren't.  And I love it how it doesn't even dawn on Christians that God/Jesus/and His Apostles did not write the bible.  

 In the case of *Revelation*, many modern scholars agree that it was written by a separate author, *John* of Patmos with some parts possibly dating to Nero's reign in the early 60s.

Bible scholar Bart Ehrman began his studies at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Originally an evangelical Christian, Ehrman believed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. But later, as a student at Princeton Theological Seminary, Ehrman started reading the Bible with a more historical approach and analyzing contradictions in the Gospels.

Ehrman, the author of _Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them),

These differences offer clues into the perspectives of the authors, and the eras in which they wrote their respective Gospels

Students taking a college-level Bible course for the first time often find it surprising that we don't know who wrote most of the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don't these books all have the authors' names attached to them? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John? How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn't this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul while knowing full well that he wasn't Paul — isn't that lying? Can Scripture contain lies?

When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the onslaught on my faith by liberal biblical scholars who were going to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of liberals.

What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren't simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.
_


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

I also don't believe the First Five Books. According to both *Jewish* and *Christian* Dogma, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (the first five books of the Bible and the entirety of the Torah) were all written by Moses in about 1,300 B.C.


----------



## hadit (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



But we know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Since particles are actually a form of energy, that means that the existing energy of the universe is spontaneously condensing into particles that perfectly match each other with the exception that they are anti-particles to each other, so they immediately destroy each other. It is miraculous indeed how they do that little disappearing act. Trust us, we're here. Oops, gotta look faster. 

Now it gets interesting when the particles pop into existence on the edge of a black hole's event horizon and one gets sucked into the black hole while the other wanders off into the universe. Hawking was very interested in that. 

As for the singularity that launched the big bang, it wasn't in the universe because the universe didn't exist.


----------



## hadit (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Naturally Jesus didn't write the Bible, He's the central figure in it. And to pretend it's somehow significant that the Apostles didn't write the majority of the Bible (being that the Old Testament was written long before they were born), is just disengenuous. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here anyway, given that only a few books are even claimed to be written by those with first hand experience with Jesus. Does it make you feel better somehow to continue?


----------



## james bond (Mar 26, 2019)

hadit said:


> Now it gets interesting when the particles pop into existence on the edge of a black hole's event horizon and one gets sucked into the black hole while the other wanders off into the universe. This is known as Hawking radiation. As for the singularity that launched the big bang, it wasn't in the universe because the universe didn't exist.



Hawking radiation was never demonstrated.  Regular physics got in the way.  It may still be able to be observed in a lab environment at CERN, but they would have to create a miniature black hole first.  The regular physics tests to show it existed all ended up with problems.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

hadit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (_i.e._, approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that may include information about Jesus.  Although Paul the Apostle provides relatively little biographical information about Jesus and states that he never knew Jesus personally, he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real person and a Jew.  Moreover, he claims to have met with James, the brother of Jesus.

scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them,[58] what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later. 

There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities

Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian


Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years _c._ 70 and 100.

Who saw Jesus and was still alive 100  years to write about it?

Most scholars date the Gospel of John to _c_. 90–110.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

hadit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I'm Greek.  I know how stupid my grandmother was.  I can just imagine Paul traveling to Greece and him telling those dumb Greeks the Jesus stories and them falling for it.  It blows my mind that anyone would hear the Jesus story and believe it.


----------



## hadit (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



So does it make you feel better about your family?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

hadit said:


> It is miraculous indeed how they do that little disappearing act.


Not at all. It's actually required by quantum mechanics.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2019)

hadit said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


But if it is a universe there is no "outside the universe," if it is the universe then it is everything. It always has to come back to energy can neither be created nor destroyed. And as you know the energy of motion contains inertial mass which according to Special Relativity is indistinguishable from gravitational mass.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> without space you cannot have time.


Actually it is without motion you can't have time.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dan Stubbs said:
> ...


Energy exists in 3 THREE forms, Kinetic, Potential and Heat, only kinetic energy is the energy of motion, so energy is NOT dependent on motion.

And again, I repeat time exists ONLY in terms of motion, please show me an equation for time that does not involve motion of some kind.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > without space you cannot have time.
> ...




Sorry, no.  Better think again.  Motion was created by the expansion of space.  Space is motion.  Motion is energy.  It takes energy to expand space.  All energy is in motion.  Without space in motion, there is no vector of time.  Before the expansion of space, therre could be no motion, therefore, no time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Save for imaginary time.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




No, I'll just save you as the Imaginary Expert.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Dude, it's not a Trump thread. No need for the tantrums. 

Settle down, ya might learn something.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


You just affirmed what he said like 12 times in a single paragraph.

He said "without motion you cant have time."

You went on a diatribe ending in, "no motion, therefore, no time."

You sure go a long way just to argue for no fuckin reason.


----------



## hadit (Mar 26, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Our universe is not infinite. If it was, it could not expand. Now, who is saying that the original singularity was in motion?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 26, 2019)

hadit said:


> Our universe is not infinite.


It seems to be finite, yet boundless.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

hadit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


What I think about their intelligence has no impact on my decision


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 26, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Wrong. Your very first sentence is wrong my brother.

You’re like a tardigrade who can only see what’s inside your drop of water. Your observable universe is all you can see but there’s more beyond. Don’t be ignorant and arrogant at the same time

And the rest of your comment is ramblings I don’t even understand. 

Energy can’t be created? Are you sure about that?

There’s so much you don’t know but act like what you think is fact. It’s not


----------



## james bond (Mar 26, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...









I do not know where you get your science, but there is more than three types of energy.  Also, you started with d = rate x time which is algebra for calculating distance, rate and time problems.  Where does energy come into it?

Why don't we start with the following before you go rambling on to try and determine which came first space, time, motion, matter and force?  These five are the basics before we get into energy or calculations.

What we want to discuss is the physics of space, time, motion, matter and force.  These are the five fundamental manifestations of natural phenomena.

"Physics evolved from Newton's Mechanics which is founded on a Metaphysics of *Space* and *Time*, which require the further concepts of the *Motion* of *Matter* 'particles' and thus also gravity 'forces' to connect these discrete matter 'particles'. The problem for physics was how are all these things connected."

Time: On the Physics / Metaphysics of Time due to the Wave Motion of Space. The Metaphysics of Space and Motion (not Time)

I think we agree that all of these things are required in the natural world and it leads to energy in the above graph -- 10 Types of Energy and Examples.

Where we will probably disagree is how they came to be?  According to God (force), the universe is a matrix of space, time, matter, and motion.  All of it has to be existing at the same conflux.  It all has to come together or none of it exists.  One cannot exist without the other.  The entire continuum must have existed simultaneously from the beginning or the universe would not form.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

G.T. said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




God damn are you dense or what?  Time is NOT a property of motion since motion itself is a property of SPACE.  Why do I waste my time on a forum where one guy calls Trump a dictator for wanting truth in journalism, another guy argues the planet will be dead in 12 years, another guy claims the government is run by Putin, and yet another guy thinks the 9/11 disaster was a secret plot faked by the CIA using explosives hidden in the building, and now in a thread about Hawking and the Big Bang, you guys end up arguing books of the Bible and then tell me I can't possibly know something which is written in practically every book on cosmology and QFT for the past 50 years, meantime, I have some twit telling me to settle down, I might learn something!   

USMB, the National Enquirer of social forums.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Therefore motion can exist in the contraction of the universe also. Again only kinetic energy is the energy of motion. Potential energy is for example the energy of position.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Your STUPID chart leaves out HEAT, the third form of energy. All the other types of energy in your chart are varieties of either kinetic or potential energy, the other 2 FORMS of energy.

Types of Energy - Knowledge Bank  - Solar Schools
*Forms of energy*
*There are many different types of energy, which all fall into two primary forms – kinetic and potential.* Energy can transform from one type to another, but it can never be destroyed or created.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


It is a PROVEN by a repeatable experimental FACT that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, AKA The First Law of Thermodynamics.

And inertial mass equaling gravitational mass is Einstein's "principal of equivalence" the very foundation of relativity.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Of course.  Motion exists even at absolute zero.  There is always motion so long as there is space.  Understand that the expansion or contraction of space itself is not "motion" since space is merely a framework relative to itself.


> Again only kinetic energy is the energy of motion.


I can't agree with that.  Kinetic energy is inertial, but thermal energy is motion of the atoms.  People are trying to define and simplify things like motion and energy here, saying this or that, and there is truth to all of it, but it is a lot more complicated than that.  There are different contexts for defining different forms of motion and energy.


> Potential energy is for example the energy of position.


I'd be happier relating to potential energy as STORED energy.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Also, you started with d = rate x time which is algebra for calculating distance, rate and time problems. Where does energy come into it?


It doesn't and I never said it did. I gave that as an example of time existing only in terms of motion. Someone else brought up energy to try to counter the fact that time exists only in terms of motion.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Of course. *Motion exists even at absolute zero*.


Sorry but the very definition of absolute zero is the temperature at which ALL motion stops!

What is absolute zero? | Cool Cosmos
*What is absolute zero?*
Absolute zero is the lowest temperature possible. At a temperature of absolute zero there is no motion and no heat. Absolute zero occurs at a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin, or -273.15 degrees Celsius, or at -460 degrees Fahrenheit.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 26, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Of course. *Motion exists even at absolute zero*.
> ...



That is not quite true.  Try reading these:

What Is Absolute Zero in Science?

absolute zero | Definition & Facts


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



That's a little more complex. A "negative temperature" is more hot than -273°C (460°F). A positive temperature is a gas, where situations of particles with low energy are more likely than situations of particles with high energy. Ulrich Schneider and Immanuel Bloch realized a gas where particles with high energy are more likely than particles with low energy. This is describeable as an inverted Boltzmann distribution = a negative Boltzmann distribution = a negative temperature. This gas is not colder - it is even hotter as any other gas at any positive temperature. The temperature stops not at any infinite positive value but switches there into negative values. This is written in other words in your source too. So "absolute zero" stays to be the "absolute lowest"  - better to say now "absolute coldest" temperature.


----------



## hadit (Mar 27, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Of course. *Motion exists even at absolute zero*.
> ...



Due to the uncertainty principle, absolute zero cannot be achieved because those pesky little electrons keep jumping around.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


WTF does this rant have to do with your dumb-ass post, exactly?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 27, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Wow that’s deep. It can be transformed not created. So the electricity coming to my house isn’t being created at the electric company and sent to me? I’m not smart enough to fully understand without further explanation. Cool shit.


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 27, 2019)

hadit said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



This fluctuations of particles in the vacuum are only virtual: A particle and its anti-particle start to exist and to destroy each other again. This is "zero". As far as I know only the event horizon of a black hole is able to separate such a particle from its anti-particle. This is called Hawking-radiation: One of both falls into the black hole and the other goes to another place. The energy for this process comes from the black hole in this case. The black hole "evaporates" (=it loses energy).


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 27, 2019)

G.T. said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Why is it always when you find someone who chooses to miss 95% of what you say, that they always then demand you to repeat or expound on it, so that they can then miss 95% of that as well?  The very idea of comprehension is the ability to see between the lines to realize the import and ramifications of a statement.  Space defines time, yes.  Space sets forth motion, yes. But the expansion of space is like the tip of the iceberg; you cannot unify gravity with QT when gravity is not even a bosonic force carrier but a field responding to a phenomena barely recognized in the nascence of modern theory!  We can barely extrapolate dark matter indirectly and only hypothesize "dark energy;"  that leaves our current physics like a three-legged chair with two of the legs with cracks in them!


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 27, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Just remember there is so much we don't know.  Don't assume you know.  

And do you think something you know proves something?  If so what?

New discoveries are causing astronomers to question if the Big Bang really happened, and using the latest science, they investigate if it wasn't just the start of our universe but many mysterious multiverses.

Did the Big Bang Really Happen? | How the Universe Works

This is a great episode.  It talks about what we know, what new discoveries we've recently made, and how we are now starting to wonder if there is more out there beyond our observable universe.  


What we don't know?  What's outside our observable universe?  What caused the big bang?  What was before our universe.

A lot of the things we assume are wrong.  Or might be wrong.  We need the next Einstein to come along and figure all this out for us.

Astronomers say the Boomerang Nebula is the *coldest*known object in the *universe*. They've learned that its temperature is one degree Kelvin (minus 458 degrees Fahrenheit). That's even *colder* than the faint afterglow of the Big Bang, which is the natural background temperature of space: *colder* than space itself.

They think this coldest place in the universe might be where another universe collided with ours.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 27, 2019)

hadit said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


The discussion was not about whether absolute zero could be achieved, it can't, but if it theoretically could be achieved that electrons would stop rotating around the nucleus of the atom.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's right, the electricity coming to your house is not "created," it is generated from the energy already existing and stored in the fuel used to run the turbines.


----------



## hadit (Mar 27, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



If that were to happen, the electrons would be immediately pulled into the nucleus due to the charge differential, where they would fuse with the protons to form neutrons.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 27, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


But doesn’t a machine have to create it?

Seems like they are creating something from nothing.

Where can I get some electricity?


----------



## hadit (Mar 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



No. The energy is stored in the fuel. Burning the fuel releases that energy, which is then used to generate electricity. You want some, get a generator and start cranking. If you do that, you're releasing the energy stored in your muscles, which then is used to generate electricity.


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



An atheist likes to speak. I remember lots of such soliloquies'.



> there is so much we don't know.  Don't assume you know.



?



> And do you think something you know proves something?  If so what?



Not everything is relative - what also the theory of relativity never said! It exist for example a highest signal speed (the lightspeed in vacuum) and it exists for example a coldest (lowest) temperature.



> New discoveries are causing astronomers to question if the Big Bang really happened,



Science fiction is not science. Who really says the universe is not expanding so this thought ends in a point, where started to expand our universe about 13.8 billion ago. Howelse to think? Why? With what kind of plausibility?



> and using the latest science, they investigate if it wasn't just the start of our universe but many mysterious multiverses.



I do not have any problem with the idea multiverses - because exclusivelly only spirItualism is able to connect this universes with our universe here. A fascinating idea.




> Did the Big Bang Really Happen? | How the Universe Works




I hope I wil later find the time to take a look at this video.  - No chance: shows the message this video is not existing in my region. 



> This is a great episode.  It talks about what we know, what new discoveries we've recently made, and how we are now starting to wonder if there is more out there beyond our observable universe.
> 
> What we don't know?  What's outside our observable universe?



There is no outside.



> What caused the big bang?  What was before our universe.



There is no before.



> A lot of the things we assume are wrong.  Or might be wrong.  We need the next Einstein to come along and figure all this out for us.



_“Do you know what Albert Einstein's definition of insanity was?" 
"No." 
"Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” _
*Christian Cantrell*



> Astronomers say the Boomerang Nebula is the *coldest*known object in the *universe*.



Do they?



> They've learned that its temperature is one degree Kelvin (minus 458 degrees Fahrenheit). That's even *colder* than the faint afterglow of the Big Bang, which is the natural background temperature of space: *colder* than space itself.



In laboratories on planet Earth - that's the third planet of the solar system - Wolfgang Ketterle cooled sodium atoms at the MIT down to 1 billionth of a degree Kelvin.



> They think this coldest place in the universe might be where another universe collided with ours.



That's a joke now, isn't it? For sure it's not Occams razor. Wherein - except "nothing" - exist parallel universes, which might have totally different natural laws? How are two universes able to collide without to destroy each other for example beause of the differences in the height of the vacuum energy? What for heavens sake means "two universes collide"?

Oh by the way: It has something to do with gas, which moves with 600.000 km/h, what causes the very deep temperature of the boomerang nebula of 1°K.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 27, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> That's a joke now, isn't it? For sure it's not Occams razor.


If you are going to make such a claim, then go ahead and follow it up with your "simpler explanation". And then we can scrutinize it.


----------



## james bond (Mar 27, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I thought you would go this route that one came after the other.  You did not even list all the pieces of the matrix.  My first impression of your thinking is that you do not have all the facts and then start telling others how science works.  We are smarter than that and smarter than you, so want to get all the pieces defined first.  What we are finding is that they are all interconnected.  They all have to be in place for any of them to work.  Now, you may have an argument based on what I have heard so far once these because I only presented the creation side with God as the force.  Otherwise, I don't think we'll get too far and we are discussing things on different levels.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Energy is NOT created, that would violate the FLoT. The "machine" CONVERTS the energy that already exists from the form that is stored in the fuel to the energy that can be transmitted over power lines.
Get it?


----------



## james bond (Mar 27, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



LMAO.  I doubt the chart is stupid as you didn't know all the different energies.  Look hard and you'll find heat there.  It starts with a 'T.'  Like I said in my previous post, I think we are on different levels.  I am presenting a college-level academic view and have listed the five fundamental manifestations of natural phenomena.  You just presented a partial list and then went right into which came first or what is required for the other to work or exist.  Now that is STUPID AF and jumping to conclusions.  Your logic is incomplete, has holes in it and yet you tell everyone else that they're wrong or something they presented is wrong .


----------



## james bond (Mar 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> That is not quite true. Try reading these:



Haha.  I doubt edthecynic will read anything one presents as he thinks he knows everything already.  His fundamentals of science are lacking, so you end up wasting your time reading most of what he has to say as he ignores your links or having things go over his head .   Presenting a definition to back up one's argument for example.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Hey idiot, I said FORMS of energy, not TYPES, all TYPES of energy fall into 3 (THREE) FORMS, Kinetic, Potential and Heat, look it up idiot.


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > That's a joke now, isn't it? For sure it's not Occams razor.
> ...



One universe. Why many? As I said : I love the idea of a multiverse - nevertheless science fiction is not science. It needs this giantic universe for our concrete little existence. The natural constants here in this universe are very well balanced, so life is possible here in this universe. We could take a look every second of the lifetime of our universe at other parallel universes - if they would exist and if we could do so - and it could happen we never would find any life there. So the idea "multiverse" - without concrete card - helps not really to explain why in our universe life is possible. The anthropic principle is not as simple as the most atheists and/or materialists seem to think. Even in this universe here we never found any life except terrestrian life. And even on our planet here - the planet with the super-ideal construction, the best of all possible worlds  - we have everywhere places with an hostile environment too, which are deadly for higher organisms.

In such a situation the species homo sapiens sapiens US-americanus trusts in a leader, who takes a snow ball and says: _"No - the global warming is not existing."_ And such a species,  which lets itselve foolish from such an unbelievable idiot,  gives criminal idiots even the might to use nuclear weapons. Mad world - specially if I think about, that we need a much more higher power than only nukes, if we like to survive as a species together with all other sister species and brother species in long term. We have to learn self-control and an immens love for all forms of life, if we like to respect our own crown of evolution and the responsibility in the eyes of god

If we should really destroy this planet here and His living creation, then I would say god would be indeed very generous, if he will throw all mankind only in hell for all eternity and not in a "think bigger" super-hell.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 28, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> One universe. Why many?


Why not? The math not only allows it, it seems to dictate it. You would have a tougher time explaining that our observable univerae is all there is or ever was, than otherwise. So you are wrong, that's actually not simpler. And it would be very silly for scientists to place such a limit on their own research. So you are doubly wrong.


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > One universe. Why many?
> ...



First: It is bad behavior to anwer a question with a question. That's a so called "no go" in an academic discussion. Second you asked me why I spoke about "Occams razor". I told you that I love the idea multiverses on spiritual reasons - but  why to speak about many universes? Why to use an unproven complexity in natural science, which no one needs for nothing?



> The math not only allows it, it seems to dictate it.



Mathematics dictates nothing what's real or unreal. Mathematics is only a way how to be able to think in very abstract ways.



> You would have a tougher time explaining that our observable univerae is all there is or ever was, than otherwise.



What?



> So you are wrong, that's actually not simpler. And it would be very silly for scientists to place such a limit on their own research. So you are doubly wrong.



Paint whatever picture you like to paint. That's the freedom of fantasy and arts - what's very important too. Tell me the experiment which is able to show that a parallel universe exists. Such an experiment is impossible. So: Ignoramus, ignorabimus! We don't know - we never will know. Whether parallel universes are existing or not is a question of belief and not a question of knowledge.

Unfortunatelly atheists often believe not to believe - and this makes it difficult for them to separate belief and knowledge. The old Christian philosophers as well as the theory of relativity show this universe here came out of nowhere and nowhen. Sure an uncomfortable thought - but we are not able to say more than that.

Our research in physics starts about 2 plank-seconds (plank-times) after the universe started to exist with all its energy, which is now able to be transformed but is not able any longer to be created or to be destroyed. Whether you call this situation of the very first steps of the universe big bang or not is unimportant. For sure the big bang was very little and it was not a bang. And what we see is: the universe expands. If we think backwards in time about this fact then this means the universe was yesterday more little than today. And the day before yesterday it was more little than yesterday ... and so on ... and so on - ... since about 5,000,000,000,000 days was it in this way. But then had happened something what is more than only strange. Suddenly everything appeared and nothing was not any longer.

-----
_Im Anfang war das Chaos. Es war ein unendlicher, gähnender Weltenabgrund, nicht hell noch dunkel, nicht warm noch kalt, weder tönend noch stumm. Hätte ein Mensch wie wir sich mit Zauberflügeln durch diesen unermeßlichen Abgrund bewegen können, er hätte mit seinen irdischen Sinnen nichts gesehen, nichts gehört, nichts gefühlt. Dennoch war das Chaos nicht leer! Es war die Heimat aller Götter und Geister, urgewaltiger Wesen, die auf die große Stunde warteten, da die Schöpfung beginnen sollte. Alles, was später entstanden ist und uns heute teils sichtbar, teils unsichtbar umgibt, war schon im Chaos vorhanden: wie ein Keim ruhte es in den erhabenen Gedanken und im tatbereiten Willen der Urgötter. Kämpfe durchwogten das Chaos, wilde Kämpfe - aber ein Menschenwesen von heute, einsam und verloren im grenzenlosen Raum, hätte nichts davon wahrgenommen; denn noch wehte nicht der leiseste Hauch, noch lebte nicht der zarteste Lichtstrahl, noch war nichts vorhanden, woran die Urgötter ihre Kraft erproben und ihre Absichten erweisen konnten, weder Luft noch Feuer, weder Wasser noch Erde. Nirgends herrschte sichtbare Bewegung, nur Totenstille und Finsternis. Auch das begnadete Auge der Seher, das weiter und tiefer blickt als der Sinn gewöhnlicher Menschen, vermochte das Chaos nicht zu durchdringen. Nur bis an seine Schwelle reichte die Rückschau der Weisen und Dichter des Griechenvolkes, und keiner wusste zu sagen, was sich jenseits begab. Was sie aber sahen und kündeten, war dies: Eines Tages habe sich ein belebendes Schimmern und wärmendes Glimmen durch das ganze Chaos verbreitet, unendlich zart: das kam von Eros, dem Gott der himmlischen Liebe, dem ältesten der Götter. Sein keusches Licht belebt noch heute die ganze Schöpfung und bindet ihre Wesen, gute wie böse, untereinander; und so belebte und befruchtete es auch das Chaos, und aus diesem entspross Gaia, die Urmutter der Erde.
-----

_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 28, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> First: It is bad behavior to anwer a question with a question.


Excuse you, i answered your question in my post. The bad behavior is all yours in attempting to dodge my points.


zaangalewa said:


> Why to use an unproven complexity in natural science, which no one needs for nothing?





zaangalewa said:


> Why to use an unproven complexity in natural science, which no one needs for nothing?


Excuse you, i not only answered that question as well, but also demonstrated why it is very poorly worded and ass backwards wrong in its assumption.



zaangalewa said:


> Mathematics dictates nothing what's real or unreal.


Excuse you, mathematics dictates the possibility. Thats now 3 times you have misrepresented me. 



zaangalewa said:


> Paint whatever picture you like to paint.


Physics and math paint this picture, as i clearly said. That's 4 times.

You know what, you little weasel? Piss off.


----------



## james bond (Mar 28, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Wrong again.   I looked you up and got -- Definition of LOSER.  In that you resort to ad hominems when I posted the graph.  Thus, you lose and I win.   How much embarrassment can you take in front of all these people?

It goes to show stupidity and atheist wrongness, i.e. their beliefs, science and religion, have no limits.  You are the perfect example of this AF.

What you listed were classifications of a total system and not forms.  Forms and types are interchangeable.  It's all listed here for the ones who seek real knowledge -- Energy - Wikipedia.

I think I pegged you just right.  All you argue about is _semantics_ and that is BORING.  You posted a definition from a dictionary to base your argument on.  You are soooooooooooo farking boring that women must say to you, "Excuse me, I have to go barf" as they head their way to the bathroom.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> Forms and types are interchangeable.


Bullshit!
Types of Energy - Knowledge Bank - Solar Schools
*Forms of energy*
*There are many different types of energy, which all fall into two primary forms – kinetic and potential.* Energy can transform from one type to another, but it can never be destroyed or created.


----------



## james bond (Mar 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why not? The math not only allows it, it seems to dictate it. You would have a tougher time explaining that our observable univerae is all there is or ever was, than otherwise. So you are wrong, that's actually not simpler. And it would be very silly for scientists to place such a limit on their own research. So you are doubly wrong.



We know there is only one universe because by definition and God said he only created one.  You cannot prove another universe unless you can create one at CERN, but you haven't been able to show particles in and out of existence.  For example, the graviton has not been found.  Atheist scientists make wild cosmology and then can't back anything up while science has backed up the universe.

I don't think gravity works by particle force.


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > First: It is bad behavior to anwer a question with a question.
> ...



Which question? I have millions and more. I find questions much faster than answers.



> The bad behavior is all yours in attempting to dodge my points.



I try to bring you wishi-washi into a much more concrete context. Believe whatever you like to believe - that's not the problem of anyone else, but your belief is not natural science, which is basing on the philosophical concept empirism.



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Why to use an unproven complexity in natural science, which no one needs for nothing?
> ...



?



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Mathematics dictates nothing what's real or unreal.
> ...



Indeed the weasel is one of my favorite heraldic animals - besides the unicorns, lions and others. This love for weasels came from the time, when George W. Bush called all Germans and French "Old Europe" and "weasels", before he made for the Saudi Arabians, who had bombed down the WTC, his totally stupid and criminal preemptive strike against the weapons of mass dissapearance in the Iraq. In those days I had big problems to find out, that your culture attributes this wonderful shy, intelligent and skillful predator with the socio-psychological attribute "insidiousness". But this is not a charcteristics of weasels and hermelins. This is a characteristics of human beings, who kill this animals and make out of their skin capes for kings.
Natural science is not politics too. Non one should need assertiveness in sciene. Either something is true or wrong - but that's not so important, what you are able to learn when you read what Aristotle wrote. The way is important how to clear questions of philosophy and science. That's why "the philosopher" Aristotle and "the interpreter" Averoes had created all modern universities of the world.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> We know there is only one universe because by definition and God said he only created one.


And, by "we", you mean just the tiny percentage of humans who have ever lived that buy, hook line and sinker, your preferred little nugget of iron aged nonsense.

But, you see, nobody gives a shit what you "believe" or think you "know", because it is based on magical incantations and myths from ignorant, semi-literate people.


----------



## zaangalewa (Apr 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > We know there is only one universe because by definition and God said he only created one.
> ...



If someone denies your attack "nobody gives a shit" with "everybody gives a shit" then this shows only that your own way to feel and to think is a very big problem. For natural scientists it's somehow always "magic" to switch on a light and light appears really. This moment on its own has a lot of the magic of the words of the bible too:_ 'And God said, _“Let there be light,” _and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.'
_


----------



## zaangalewa (Apr 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Why not? The math not only allows it, it seems to dictate it. You would have a tougher time explaining that our observable univerae is all there is or ever was, than otherwise. So you are wrong, that's actually not simpler. And it would be very silly for scientists to place such a limit on their own research. So you are doubly wrong.
> ...



Did he say so? The very old sentence _"He cretated the heavens and the worlds"  _looks not like the people in former times had the impression god limited his creation to only one interpretation of reality. So why not different natural laws in different universes? The real astonishing thing is not this - the real astonishing thing is we are able to have ideas, which try to overstep the reality in which we live here. What we are not able to overstep: We are not able to think about a universe without any natural laws.


----------



## zaangalewa (Apr 1, 2019)

abu afak

If you are the future of the USA, then I have to say your future seems to be dumb & dark.


----------



## james bond (Apr 3, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



He created the heavens and earth our of nothing.  It was creation ex nihilo.  We found that it involved the five manifestations of all natural phenomena -- force (God), space, time, matter and motion.  All had to be present at the same time in order for it to happen.  Can you explain how your interpretation of reality happened using these manifestations?

People want me to support my statements using books since Darwin wrote one.  Here is one -- The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God.  One of the reasons it states why humans want to eliminate God is that they hate God.  They do not want to be be subject to God's laws and not be held accountable for their behavior.  You can see some of this emotion in the stuff atheists write here.


----------



## james bond (Apr 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > That's a joke now, isn't it? For sure it's not Occams razor.
> ...



God did it.  Is that simple enough for you, Fort Fun Indiana?  Can you explain yours in three words or less?


----------



## james bond (Apr 3, 2019)

edthecynic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Forms and types are interchangeable.
> ...



Haha.  I've already said I'm not going argue semantics with you and have moved on.  You are still arguing semantics and from an elementary school website yet.  Smart adults make cogent arguments based on their thinking and not from some definition.  They expound on their thinking that follow the definitions.  The definition is important when setting up ground rules, but we are way past elementary school.  Besides, it is terribly boring to argue semantics and you act like you are smart or something, but you are not.  You brain is still at elementary school level and your ignorance is showing.


----------



## zaangalewa (Apr 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Or not. What changes nothing for Christians. The problem is a probnlem of philosophy and science. Of rationality adn experience. Of mathematics and reality. Perhaps we are able to find one day something what is not only physically nothing "before" the creation of the universe had happened. Who knows? I hope we will not crucify this what we perhaps might will find.



> We found that it involved the five manifestations of all natural phenomena -- force (God), space, time, matter and motion.



Who is "we"? And your description makes not a big sense because [potential] "motion" is "force" too and matter is a kind of frozen form of energy too. And nowhere is "information". And in general this all is creation not creator. Sure we can see god in his creation - but I guess not directly. When we see god, then we see often how wonderful the real existing world is.



> All had to be present at the same time in order for it to happen.  Can you explain how your interpretation of reality



My what? My thoughts? Can I explain how I think? Not really, I guess. While I think I'm not able to watch me thinking.



> happened using these manifestations?



I doubt about it makes a big sense what you said here with this manifestations.



> People want me to support my statements using books since Darwin wrote one.  Here is one -- The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God.



I don't take a look now at this. Perhaps later.



> One of the reasons it states why humans want to eliminate God is that they hate God.



Why should someone hate god? Even the devil loves god.



> They do not want to be be subject to God's laws



No one is able to create or to destroy energy for example. But everyone is able to be a murderer. It exist different degrees of freedom and the "first bible", the "first word of god" is the "opus dei", is his creation - and in his creation, in his nature, his sun shines for everyone and his rain falls for everyone.



> and not be held accountable for their behavior.



Everyone is responsible in the eyes of the Lord - but not everyone is responsible for the behavior of other people.



> You can see some of this emotion in the stuff atheists write here.



Godless people of all religions and beliefs are doing terrible things. Atheists too. Why should they not have the right to speak nonsense, when everyone else has this right too? But not every atheist is godless only because of a lack of belief in god. There will be sometimes reasons for - so who am I to doubt in the will of god? I am sure: Everyone has always all chances, until the last moment of life - perhaps even longer.

favorite song of Stephen Hawking


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> God did it. Is that simple enough for you, Fort Fun Indiana?


Yes, but its not simple enough for you. You aren't content to point at everything and say "god did it". You also have to claim he did it a certain way that contradicts all the evidence. Get it straight, pal.


----------



## james bond (Apr 3, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Who is "we"?



We are creation scientists and I. 



zaangalewa said:


> And your description makes not a big sense because [potential] "motion" is "force" too and matter is a kind of frozen form of energy too. And nowhere is "information". And in general this all is creation not creator. Sure we can see god in his creation - but I guess not directly. When we see god, then we see often how wonderful the real existing world is.



You don't understand the five manifestations of natural phenomena.  Look it up.  It's by Herbert Spencer, the survival of the fittest guy.  What creation scientists theorize is they had to happen all at once by God (force) for any of it to work.  Can you explain how it happened?

The rest does not make much sense.  Pick something you want to discuss if it's important.


----------



## zaangalewa (Apr 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Who is "we"?
> ...



"Schöpfungsnaturwissenschaftler?" Such a word makes in the German language not a big sense. Sure has everything to do with everything. And still only spirtual beings are able to do natural science with methods of perceptions, thoughts and languages including mathematics. But natural science on its own is only able to study the material components. In natural science a first cause is without cause, that's why it is a first cause. If a transzendent world caused a first cause - let me call this "wonder" - then natural science is not a way to find out whether this wonders are able to be true or not true.



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > And your description makes not a big sense because [potential] "motion" is "force" too and matter is a kind of frozen form of energy too. And nowhere is "information". And in general this all is creation not creator. Sure we can see god in his creation - but I guess not directly. When we see god, then we see often how wonderful the real existing world is.
> ...



I understand what you say. I think this "manifestations" make not a big sense in context natural science. Cern tests in the moment for example differences in the half-life-time period - better to say: in something what's comparable with this idea -  of some particles and their antiparticles, which could explain why today matter exists and anti-matter not exists, because we do not understand in a satisfying way what kind of asymetric structure took care for the 1,000,000,001 part of matter which met once 1,000,000,000 parts of anti-matter. Where are you able to place such a research in your system of manifestations?



> Look it up.  It's by Herbert Spencer, the survival of the fittest guy.



The survival of what? Don't use expressions of the theory of evolution for human societies. I fear without the values of serios religions would survive in human societies only intrigant and violent male idiots - what would lead to their own extinction.



> What creation scientists theorize is they had to happen all at once by God (force) for any of it to work.  Can you explain how it happened?



How what happened? The discussion "creation vs evolution" is for me a very strange discussion. Only a very little thought in this context: Creation is able to create evolution - but evolution is not able to evolve creation. This shows both expressions are different and are not easily comparable.



> The rest does not make much sense.  Pick something you want to discuss if it's important.



I fear nothing makes for members of the US-American culture any sense what fits not with the own opinions and indoctrinations. That's why it makes not a big fun to "discuss" with people of your culture. You never will change any of your opinions - except you are forced to do so - and your opponents will never change their opinions too. That's a result of your political sytem "the winner takes it all". I prefer the system "live and let live".


----------

