does God love us?

[Taz]

So you admit to wanting to bend some people over and pack their fudge.

Again... just people like you who are a danger to society.

Again... you admit to wanting to pack fudge. That makes you a homo. Homoding.

 

[ding]

Of course I'm sure Taz doesn't understand what the radiation era means.

IT'S SIMPLY MORE DEFLECTION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST SECOND OF THE BB?

CMB is the empirical evidence, dummy.

You're trying to guess what happened at t5he start of the BB by looking at what happened 400,000 years later. And then call it empirical evidence. Maybe you a complete assholes doofus.

Nope. I am telling you what the science says. I even posted the link to the university of Oregon. So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with scientists.

Science calls them all theories. Plug your brain in, you might grasp the concept.

I'm sorry the universe being created form nothing freaks you out, Taz.

Don't they call it a singularity? So not nothing?

And it may even be from what they think right now, I just need real proof. You have super low standards for veracity, for what should be empirical evidence.

As well, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a.k.a., the Sagan standard). And I agree with that. You don't.

The term singularity refers to the fact that Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite values. In other words, it's where the math ends. It has nothing to do with a physical phenomenon. That point in the equations is when the universe is roughly the size of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

 

[ding]

So you admit to wanting to bend some people over and pack their fudge.

Again... just people like you who are a danger to society.

Again... you admit to wanting to pack fudge. That makes you a homo. Homoding.

No. Just memorialize how stupid you are in a thread that is just you and me and can be easily referenced in the future.

 

[BreezeWood]

Of course I'm sure Taz doesn't understand what the radiation era means.

IT'S SIMPLY MORE DEFLECTION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST SECOND OF THE BB?

CMB is the empirical evidence, dummy.

You're trying to guess what happened at t5he start of the BB by looking at what happened 400,000 years later. And then call it empirical evidence. Maybe you a complete assholes doofus.

Nope. I am telling you what the science says. I even posted the link to the university of Oregon. So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with scientists.

Science calls them all theories. Plug your brain in, you might grasp the concept.

I'm sorry the universe being created form nothing freaks you out, Taz.

Don't they call it a singularity? So not nothing?

And it may even be from what they think right now, I just need real proof. You have super low standards for veracity, for what should be empirical evidence.

As well, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a.k.a., the Sagan standard). And I agree with that. You don't.

The term singularity refers to the fact that Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite values. In other words, it's where the math ends. It has nothing to do with a physical phenomenon. That point in the equations is when the universe is roughly the size of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.
not the universe the initiation phase, moment of singularity of cyclical bb.

 

[Taz]

Of course I'm sure Taz doesn't understand what the radiation era means.

IT'S SIMPLY MORE DEFLECTION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST SECOND OF THE BB?

CMB is the empirical evidence, dummy.

You're trying to guess what happened at t5he start of the BB by looking at what happened 400,000 years later. And then call it empirical evidence. Maybe you a complete assholes doofus.

Nope. I am telling you what the science says. I even posted the link to the university of Oregon. So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with scientists.

Science calls them all theories. Plug your brain in, you might grasp the concept.

I'm sorry the universe being created form nothing freaks you out, Taz.

Don't they call it a singularity? So not nothing?

And it may even be from what they think right now, I just need real proof. You have super low standards for veracity, for what should be empirical evidence.

As well, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a.k.a., the Sagan standard). And I agree with that. You don't.

The term singularity refers to the fact that Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite values. In other words, it's where the math ends. It has nothing to do with a physical phenomenon. That point in the equations is when the universe is roughly the size of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

Quote me the exact spot where CERN says we came from nothing and have proof, then show the proof. Bet you can't. You'll probably post the video of the Vilenkin dude, lol.

 

[Taz]

So you admit to wanting to bend some people over and pack their fudge.

Again... just people like you who are a danger to society.

Again... you admit to wanting to pack fudge. That makes you a homo. Homoding.

No. Just memorialize how stupid you are in a thread that is just you and me and can be easily referenced in the future.

I don't go into a closed room with homoding.

 

[ding]

Of course I'm sure Taz doesn't understand what the radiation era means.

IT'S SIMPLY MORE DEFLECTION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST SECOND OF THE BB?

CMB is the empirical evidence, dummy.

You're trying to guess what happened at t5he start of the BB by looking at what happened 400,000 years later. And then call it empirical evidence. Maybe you a complete assholes doofus.

Nope. I am telling you what the science says. I even posted the link to the university of Oregon. So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with scientists.

Science calls them all theories. Plug your brain in, you might grasp the concept.

I'm sorry the universe being created form nothing freaks you out, Taz.

Don't they call it a singularity? So not nothing?

And it may even be from what they think right now, I just need real proof. You have super low standards for veracity, for what should be empirical evidence.

As well, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a.k.a., the Sagan standard). And I agree with that. You don't.

The term singularity refers to the fact that Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite values. In other words, it's where the math ends. It has nothing to do with a physical phenomenon. That point in the equations is when the universe is roughly the size of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

Quote me the exact spot where CERN says we came from nothing and have proof, then show the proof. Bet you can't. You'll probably post the video of the Vilenkin dude, lol.

You will have to debate that in the Bull Ring, Taz.

 

[ding]

So you admit to wanting to bend some people over and pack their fudge.

Again... just people like you who are a danger to society.

Again... you admit to wanting to pack fudge. That makes you a homo. Homoding.

No. Just memorialize how stupid you are in a thread that is just you and me and can be easily referenced in the future.

I don't go into a closed room with homoding.

Your call. Then I will stand unopposed.

 

[ding]

Of course I'm sure Taz doesn't understand what the radiation era means.

IT'S SIMPLY MORE DEFLECTION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST SECOND OF THE BB?

CMB is the empirical evidence, dummy.

You're trying to guess what happened at t5he start of the BB by looking at what happened 400,000 years later. And then call it empirical evidence. Maybe you a complete assholes doofus.

Nope. I am telling you what the science says. I even posted the link to the university of Oregon. So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with scientists.

Science calls them all theories. Plug your brain in, you might grasp the concept.

I'm sorry the universe being created form nothing freaks you out, Taz.

Don't they call it a singularity? So not nothing?

And it may even be from what they think right now, I just need real proof. You have super low standards for veracity, for what should be empirical evidence.

As well, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a.k.a., the Sagan standard). And I agree with that. You don't.

The term singularity refers to the fact that Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite values. In other words, it's where the math ends. It has nothing to do with a physical phenomenon. That point in the equations is when the universe is roughly the size of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.
not the universe the initiation phase, moment of singularity of cyclical bb.

The singularity is not a physical phenomenon.

 

[BreezeWood]

Of course I'm sure Taz doesn't understand what the radiation era means.

IT'S SIMPLY MORE DEFLECTION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST SECOND OF THE BB?

CMB is the empirical evidence, dummy.

You're trying to guess what happened at t5he start of the BB by looking at what happened 400,000 years later. And then call it empirical evidence. Maybe you a complete assholes doofus.

Nope. I am telling you what the science says. I even posted the link to the university of Oregon. So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with scientists.

Science calls them all theories. Plug your brain in, you might grasp the concept.

I'm sorry the universe being created form nothing freaks you out, Taz.

Don't they call it a singularity? So not nothing?

And it may even be from what they think right now, I just need real proof. You have super low standards for veracity, for what should be empirical evidence.

As well, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a.k.a., the Sagan standard). And I agree with that. You don't.

The term singularity refers to the fact that Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite values. In other words, it's where the math ends. It has nothing to do with a physical phenomenon. That point in the equations is when the universe is roughly the size of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.
not the universe the initiation phase, moment of singularity of cyclical bb.

The singularity is not a physical phenomenon.

.
the moment of singularity is a transition - from one to another ... descriptive of a physical phenomena.

 

[Taz]

Of course I'm sure Taz doesn't understand what the radiation era means.

IT'S SIMPLY MORE DEFLECTION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST SECOND OF THE BB?

CMB is the empirical evidence, dummy.

You're trying to guess what happened at t5he start of the BB by looking at what happened 400,000 years later. And then call it empirical evidence. Maybe you a complete assholes doofus.

Nope. I am telling you what the science says. I even posted the link to the university of Oregon. So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with scientists.

Science calls them all theories. Plug your brain in, you might grasp the concept.

I'm sorry the universe being created form nothing freaks you out, Taz.

Don't they call it a singularity? So not nothing?

And it may even be from what they think right now, I just need real proof. You have super low standards for veracity, for what should be empirical evidence.

As well, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a.k.a., the Sagan standard). And I agree with that. You don't.

The term singularity refers to the fact that Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite values. In other words, it's where the math ends. It has nothing to do with a physical phenomenon. That point in the equations is when the universe is roughly the size of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

Quote me the exact spot where CERN says we came from nothing and have proof, then show the proof. Bet you can't. You'll probably post the video of the Vilenkin dude, lol.

You will have to debate that in the Bull Ring, Taz.

Is that where all your bullshit is?

 

[Taz]

So you admit to wanting to bend some people over and pack their fudge.

Again... just people like you who are a danger to society.

Again... you admit to wanting to pack fudge. That makes you a homo. Homoding.

No. Just memorialize how stupid you are in a thread that is just you and me and can be easily referenced in the future.

I don't go into a closed room with homoding.

Your call. Then I will stand unopposed.

Nobody pays attention to what you rant on about. Get a grip.

 

[Taz]

Of course I'm sure Taz doesn't understand what the radiation era means.

IT'S SIMPLY MORE DEFLECTION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST SECOND OF THE BB?

CMB is the empirical evidence, dummy.

You're trying to guess what happened at t5he start of the BB by looking at what happened 400,000 years later. And then call it empirical evidence. Maybe you a complete assholes doofus.

Nope. I am telling you what the science says. I even posted the link to the university of Oregon. So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with scientists.

Science calls them all theories. Plug your brain in, you might grasp the concept.

I'm sorry the universe being created form nothing freaks you out, Taz.

Don't they call it a singularity? So not nothing?

And it may even be from what they think right now, I just need real proof. You have super low standards for veracity, for what should be empirical evidence.

As well, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a.k.a., the Sagan standard). And I agree with that. You don't.

The term singularity refers to the fact that Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite values. In other words, it's where the math ends. It has nothing to do with a physical phenomenon. That point in the equations is when the universe is roughly the size of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.
not the universe the initiation phase, moment of singularity of cyclical bb.

The singularity is not a physical phenomenon.

"a point or region of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces and which is held to be the final state of matter falling into a black hole"
Definition of SINGULARITY

 

[ding]

Of course I'm sure Taz doesn't understand what the radiation era means.

IT'S SIMPLY MORE DEFLECTION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST SECOND OF THE BB?

CMB is the empirical evidence, dummy.

You're trying to guess what happened at t5he start of the BB by looking at what happened 400,000 years later. And then call it empirical evidence. Maybe you a complete assholes doofus.

Nope. I am telling you what the science says. I even posted the link to the university of Oregon. So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with scientists.

Science calls them all theories. Plug your brain in, you might grasp the concept.

I'm sorry the universe being created form nothing freaks you out, Taz.

Don't they call it a singularity? So not nothing?

And it may even be from what they think right now, I just need real proof. You have super low standards for veracity, for what should be empirical evidence.

As well, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a.k.a., the Sagan standard). And I agree with that. You don't.

The term singularity refers to the fact that Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite values. In other words, it's where the math ends. It has nothing to do with a physical phenomenon. That point in the equations is when the universe is roughly the size of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.
not the universe the initiation phase, moment of singularity of cyclical bb.

The singularity is not a physical phenomenon.

.
the moment of singularity is a transition - from one to another ... descriptive of a physical phenomena.

No. It's not. The term singularity refers to the fact that Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite values. In other words, it's where the math ends. It has nothing to do with a physical phenomenon. That point in the equations is when the universe is roughly the size of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.

 

[ding]

Of course I'm sure Taz doesn't understand what the radiation era means.

IT'S SIMPLY MORE DEFLECTION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST SECOND OF THE BB?

CMB is the empirical evidence, dummy.

You're trying to guess what happened at t5he start of the BB by looking at what happened 400,000 years later. And then call it empirical evidence. Maybe you a complete assholes doofus.

Nope. I am telling you what the science says. I even posted the link to the university of Oregon. So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with scientists.

Science calls them all theories. Plug your brain in, you might grasp the concept.

I'm sorry the universe being created form nothing freaks you out, Taz.

Don't they call it a singularity? So not nothing?

And it may even be from what they think right now, I just need real proof. You have super low standards for veracity, for what should be empirical evidence.

As well, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a.k.a., the Sagan standard). And I agree with that. You don't.

The term singularity refers to the fact that Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinite values. In other words, it's where the math ends. It has nothing to do with a physical phenomenon. That point in the equations is when the universe is roughly the size of roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.

I do agree with that. CMB, Red shift, FLoT, SLoT, quantum mechanics, an expanding universe, Einstein's field equations and inflation theory meet that requirement. That's why CERN posts on their website that the universe began. Because CERN believes we have real proof.

.
not the universe the initiation phase, moment of singularity of cyclical bb.

The singularity is not a physical phenomenon.

"a point or region of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces and which is held to be the final state of matter falling into a black hole"
Definition of SINGULARITY

God, you are stupid.


as defined by the field equations.

 

[Taz]

God, you are stupid.

Why do you call your god stupid? I don't disagree...

 

[ding]

God, you are stupid.

Why do you call your god stupid? I don't disagree...

Are Singularities Real?

They appear inside black holes and pose a big problem for physicists. What are singularities?

www.pbs.org

Though they sound exotic, mathematical singularities are actually common in solutions to all but the simplest equations in physics. The formation of shock waves and cracks, and even the motion of a billiard ball bouncing off a hard wall, can contain singularities. While these singularities fulfill the mathematical definition, they aren’t physically real either: they arise from idealized assumptions that physicists make to force the messy world of reality into the neat one of mathematics. In reality, no crack is perfectly sharp, no wall is perfectly hard, no shock wave is perfectly localized.

 

[ding]

So in the context of the Big Bang there is no physical singularity because the universe was expanding and not collapsing. The singularity occurs when running the equations backwards to the point of origin. Black holes may be a different matter.

 

[Sunsettommy]

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It is only through the workings of God that every single one of us has the opportunity to gain everlasting life. He loves you and wants you to succeed and find everlasting happiness.

It has been 2000 years since the never seen, felt or heard, god so loved the world, that pestilence, wars and famine KILLING over a Billion died doesn't bother it all, must be his plan to wait until a Trillion died in agony first.

What a loving god!

 

[Taz]

God, you are stupid.

Why do you call your god stupid? I don't disagree...

Are Singularities Real?

They appear inside black holes and pose a big problem for physicists. What are singularities?

www.pbs.org

Though they sound exotic, mathematical singularities are actually common in solutions to all but the simplest equations in physics. The formation of shock waves and cracks, and even the motion of a billiard ball bouncing off a hard wall, can contain singularities. While these singularities fulfill the mathematical definition, they aren’t physically real either: they arise from idealized assumptions that physicists make to force the messy world of reality into the neat one of mathematics. In reality, no crack is perfectly sharp, no wall is perfectly hard, no shock wave is perfectly localized.

So a singularity isn't nothing. You stand corrected.