Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[ding]

Gee, Taz tell us how the big bang happened.

It just goes over your head, you're too locked in to your anti-science religious dogma. I bet you're big into comic books as well.

I'm not the one denying the science behind the big bang, taz. That would be you.

You're jumping on a theory that isn't yet fact. And quite frankly, doesn't sound very plausible, because you'd need an invisible magician to make that happen like that. But hey, you enjoy living in a fantasy world, go for it.

Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo

Questions regarding the formation of the Universe and ‘what was there’ before it came to existence have been of great interest to mankind at all times…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[ding]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

I like it when you deny science.

It's called the big bang.

I have the science right, you're the one who has to make shit up. Now you're going to drag another jackass down with you.

Big Bang: ~14 billion years ago space and time were created when 1,000,000,000 anti matter particles per 1,000,000,001 matter particles popped into existence from nothing. For every 1 matter particle in existence today there were 1,000,000,000 matter / anti matter annihilations releasing epic proportions of energy and propelling the remaining matter particles outward. The cosmic background radiation that we can "see" and measure are the remnants of those annihilations.

Taz: We can't see that far back.

View attachment 468562

Then it should be easy to link to a telescope shot of the BB itself. You can't? DUH!

View attachment 468768

So you can't link. Got it. Now post the Captain again, we know you want to.

Endless Creation Out of Nothing

Could our universe have been an experiment by an ancient civilization?

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Taz]

Gee, Taz tell us how the big bang happened.

It just goes over your head, you're too locked in to your anti-science religious dogma. I bet you're big into comic books as well.

I'm not the one denying the science behind the big bang, taz. That would be you.

You're jumping on a theory that isn't yet fact. And quite frankly, doesn't sound very plausible, because you'd need an invisible magician to make that happen like that. But hey, you enjoy living in a fantasy world, go for it.

Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo

Questions regarding the formation of the Universe and ‘what was there’ before it came to existence have been of great interest to mankind at all times…

www.sciencedirect.com

From your link "We therefore propose the ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN) theory". Read the last word out loud. Over and over again.

 

[Taz]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

I like it when you deny science.

It's called the big bang.

I have the science right, you're the one who has to make shit up. Now you're going to drag another jackass down with you.

Big Bang: ~14 billion years ago space and time were created when 1,000,000,000 anti matter particles per 1,000,000,001 matter particles popped into existence from nothing. For every 1 matter particle in existence today there were 1,000,000,000 matter / anti matter annihilations releasing epic proportions of energy and propelling the remaining matter particles outward. The cosmic background radiation that we can "see" and measure are the remnants of those annihilations.

Taz: We can't see that far back.

View attachment 468562

Then it should be easy to link to a telescope shot of the BB itself. You can't? DUH!

View attachment 468768

So you can't link. Got it. Now post the Captain again, we know you want to.

Endless Creation Out of Nothing

Could our universe have been an experiment by an ancient civilization?

www.scientificamerican.com

You'd need to quote the relevant part, because i saw nothing pertaining to our discussion.

 

[ding]

Gee, Taz tell us how the big bang happened.

It just goes over your head, you're too locked in to your anti-science religious dogma. I bet you're big into comic books as well.

I'm not the one denying the science behind the big bang, taz. That would be you.

You're jumping on a theory that isn't yet fact. And quite frankly, doesn't sound very plausible, because you'd need an invisible magician to make that happen like that. But hey, you enjoy living in a fantasy world, go for it.

Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo

Questions regarding the formation of the Universe and ‘what was there’ before it came to existence have been of great interest to mankind at all times…

www.sciencedirect.com

From your link "We therefore propose the ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN) theory". Read the last word out loud. Over and over again.

You mean like the theory of evolution?

It's OK that you deny science, Taz. Own it. You'd make a great JW or Christian Scientist.

 

[ding]

ding is trying to get you to think things through for yourself. I grasp precisely what he's doing. Taz, carefully read and think about the following line of discourse:

Taz speaking to ding: "You think that the universe popped out of nothing. That's not logical."

No. What he's telling you, ultimately, is that the Universe began to exist and that the cause of its existence is a mind of incomparable greatness. ding, like I, grasp the ramifications of the science. It doesn't seem that you do.

But you have no proof for your claim, making it an opinion. And dingbat actually thinks that the universe popped out of nothing, even though he can't prove that either.

Nonsense! The Universe began to exist. It cannot be otherwise. As for the cause of its existence, put that out of your mind for the moment and carefully read what ding is telling you again:

The universe popping into existence in the space of of 1 trillionth of 1 billionth the size of an atom and then expanding is the proof that it was created from nothing.

But it's not ding that says the universe was created from nothing, it's the scientific community which says. that. It's called the big bang theory.

I hold to the very same thing as the scientific community holds to. How is that illogical? The universe was created to exist from nothing! You just don't know the science, apparently, and you don't grasp what the philosophical construct creatio ex nihilo means precisely in this instance.

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

I like it when you deny science.

It's called the big bang.

I have the science right, you're the one who has to make shit up. Now you're going to drag another jackass down with you.

Big Bang: ~14 billion years ago space and time were created when 1,000,000,000 anti matter particles per 1,000,000,001 matter particles popped into existence from nothing. For every 1 matter particle in existence today there were 1,000,000,000 matter / anti matter annihilations releasing epic proportions of energy and propelling the remaining matter particles outward. The cosmic background radiation that we can "see" and measure are the remnants of those annihilations.

Taz: We can't see that far back.

View attachment 468562

Then it should be easy to link to a telescope shot of the BB itself. You can't? DUH!

View attachment 468768

So you can't link. Got it. Now post the Captain again, we know you want to.

Endless Creation Out of Nothing

Could our universe have been an experiment by an ancient civilization?

www.scientificamerican.com

You'd need to quote the relevant part, because i saw nothing pertaining to our discussion.

Sorry it was beyond your comprehension, Taz. I'll try to find a coloring book version for you.

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

 

[Ringtone]

The CMB is the result on [sic] the BB. The BB we can't see yet.

Taz, you're confounding the Big Bang model at large with the discrete succession of events.

Cosmic inflation, the conversion of vacuum energy per the break in the symmetry of the grand unification, is the bang of the Big Bang. The CMB is a snapshot of the state of the universe just after this conversion of vacuum energy, which caused the universe to expand at a rapid, exponential rate and stretched the quantum fluctuations of the underlying field across the early universe, creating comparatively near-uniform regions of energy density. This is what is meant by the Big Bang state, which is caught by the CMB, and the Big Bang state requires cosmic inflation. What you mean to say, apparently, is that the CMB is not a snapshot of the conversion of energy, but its aftermath.

What else could have possibly caused the Big Bang state, Taz?

 

[Taz]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

 

[Taz]

The CMB is the result on [sic] the BB. The BB we can't see yet.

Taz, you're confounding the Big Bang model at large with the discrete succession of events.

Cosmic inflation, the conversion of vacuum energy per the break in the symmetry of the grand unification, is the bang of the Big Bang. The CMB is a snapshot of the state of the universe just after this conversion of vacuum energy, which caused the universe to expand at a rapid, exponential rate and stretched the quantum fluctuations of the underlying field across the early universe, creating comparatively near-uniform regions of energy density. This is what is meant by the Big Bang state, which is caught by the CMB, and the Big Bang state requires cosmic inflation. What you mean to say, apparently, is that the CMB is not a snapshot of the conversion of energy, but its aftermath.

What else could have possibly caused the Big Bang state, Taz?

When we can see it, we'll probably know, it will be an exiting time, seeing if any predictions are right. You describing the things we can see, but we're still missing the central piece of the puzzle.

 

[Taz]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

 

[Taz]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

 

[Mac-7]

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Only a godless lib would say that

Though very few of us practice it as we should, our first allegiance is to God through our Savior Jesus Christ

 

[Taz]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

 

[Ringtone]

When we can see it, we'll probably know, it will be an exiting time, seeing if any predictions are right. You describing the things we can see, but we're still missing the central piece of the puzzle.

Wait a minute! I need to ask you some questions to make sure I know precisely what you're saying.

You do understand that on the Big Bang model, the Big Bang state observed in the CMB is the immediate aftermath of the break in the symmetry of the grand unification and the cosmic inflation thereof, the latter of which is the massive conversion of the compressed energy of the cosmic, quantum vacuum?

Yes?

But because we cannot directly observe the initial break of the four fundamental forces of nature and the cosmic inflation of the massive conversion . . . we have no evidence or proof that the universe began to exist in the finite past?!

 

[ding]

The scientific community admits that they can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so that's why they call it a theory. That that's the leading theory of the day is pretty meaningless in the big picture. It'll be what it'll be when and if we ever discover what the BB actually was. dingbat's already made up his mind what it is because it fits his bible narrative, when if fact, he's wrong.

Your understanding of things is incomplete. Ultimately, whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed is irrelevant. The physical world necessarily began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite, on its very face, is an absurdity.

Science's purview is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large (the physical world) cannot be past eternal (an actual infinite).

In other words, we cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility of the latter. Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

​

​

​

Sure, the universe started at some point, but how it started and from what is still not known.

Nope. Nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

We can see that shortly after the BB, but we're still a ways away from seeing the BB. It will be really existing if they ever get there. After millennia of everyone trying to guess what it it.

And we can know that energy and matter cannot be eternal. so energy and matter must have a beginning and our understanding of the big bang fits in perfectly with matter and energy being created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The universe had not yet formed so it's laws might not apply yet, like the BB expansion going faster than light.

What part of we know energy and matter cannot be eternal did you not understand?

We still can't see the BB, everything is therefore speculation. Deal with it.

So in other words you don't understand what I am talking about.

Because you make no sense refusing to acknowledge that science can't actually see to BB.

Taz, why do you believe cosmologists believe the universe was created if science can't see to the Big Bang?

 

[Taz]

When we can see it, we'll probably know, it will be an exiting time, seeing if any predictions are right. You describing the things we can see, but we're still missing the central piece of the puzzle.

Wait a minute! I need to ask you some questions to make sure I know precisely what you're saying.

You do understand that on the Big Bang model, the Big Bang state observed in the CMB is the immediate aftermath of the break in the symmetry of the grand unification and the cosmic inflation thereof, the latter of which is the massive conversion of the compressed energy of the cosmic, quantum vacuum?

Yes?

But because we cannot directly observe the initial break of the four fundamental forces of nature and the cosmic inflation of the massive conversion . . . we have no evidence or proof that the universe began to exist in the finite past?!

Your first premise supposes that the BB has been observed and that it's what you say. So that's wrong, we can't yet see the BB so can only guess at what happened there.

As for your second premise, as we can't see the BB, we have no way of knowing whether it's the beginning of something, or a continuation of something.