If God's Flood was only a regional flood...

[ding]

It’s called logic.

So admit YOU DO?

No. I admit that you can’t follow logic.

That's because you're an idiot. You realize that, right?

I’m not the one assuming other multiverses follow different laws, Taz. That’s you.

i'm saying it's possible because it is possible.

Why would you think it is possible?

 

[westwall]

Doesn’t prove what was before. Yawn.

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

No, you have zero interest in discussing the flood myth. Your entire OP is a 3 year old screaming "God killed my puppy I hate GOD!" You are incapable of carrying on a reasoned discussion about anything because you simply don't care to. You just want to call religious people stupid for having their beliefs. Any moron such as you can do that but why waste your time on it?

There are only two logical reasons; she has an ax to grind because of some perceived slight or she needs to make herself feel superior to others. Either way, I don’t believe she is getting much satisfaction from it.

Oh she is definitely in the "I'm better than you" camp. There's no doubt about that.

 

[james bond]

Multiple universes are a different story. They exist outside of our space and time and cannot be observed by us. But the same principles apply to them that apply to us. They had a beginning and did not exist before that beginning. They were created through the laws of nature which existed before their space and time were created and the cause of their creation was the same as ours. So since it is impossible for matter and energy to be eternal the only solution to the first cause remains to be something which is eternal and unchanging.

So now you're agreeing that outside our universe, there could be other universes, in other words, before the BB there could have been other universes already out there. It's a hard road, but I'm getting you there. Very, very slowly. But we'll get there.

I never argued against multiverses. Just your attempt to describe them. But the same principles that applies to ours applies to theirs. There is only one source and that source is eternal and unchanging.

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

You can't have any number of different laws that we do not know about. This is fallacious scientific thinking. There can't exist any number of possibilities through multiverses because then no experiment or observation that we do today would be valid. It could mean that it would not be successful in another universe or it may not apply to a different universe. Then there would be no way to falsify anything.

The way to these universes is supposed to be wormholes. They are also supposed to be a way to travel through time, i.e. time is shortened by going through a wormhole. What is the evidence for these wormholes?

My take is there are other dimensions instead of multiverses. For example, we know that spacetime curves when one can travel at the speed of light and that gravity will affect it and the traveler. It may not have to be the speed of light, but a percentage. Very fast space travel could open up pathways we never were able to find. Where's the evidence? One, the shape of the universe is described in the Bible. That it is flat or thin on one side and fast expanding like a curtain, and that it has edges and that the edges curve upward. We also have the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity and the standard cosmological model. With mathematics, we can envision how 3-D objects would appear in the 4th dimension.



One of the pieces of evidence she mentions for multidimensions is looking for particles. If we can show that a graviton exists, then it would be evidence for multiple dimensions. The graviton exists in our world one moment and could move into a higher dimension the next.

One evidence for no multiverses
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

Your link is what appears to be a failed experiment. Which in no way says that multiverses are not possible. Only when we can see into other universes will we know if they all have the same laws or not.

It wasn't a failed experiment, but a mistake made in looking for gravitational waves. The galactic dust caused their readings to be incorrect. What the initial success and aftermath of BICEP2 (was not correct) showed was evolution's cosmic inflation proponents were wrong. They were all too eager to propose what you propose of having any number of different laws in other universes and that cosmic inflation backs up the Big Bang Theory. All it did was show where cosmic inflation is not found.. Even though gravitational waves were discovered after this experiment, it does not mean that the cosmic inflation theory part of the Big Bang Theory holds, too. It's like they're science-ing the sh*t out of gravitational waves so that the cosmic inflation model can be propped up.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe. If it were not true, which it isn't, then our universe would look not as dense and similar as it expanded out from its initial "bang." It doesn't explain the clusters of our galaxies and stuff even if much of the materials in the mass can be pressed into a point of singularity. Moreover, as you know, the heat of the universe in one part of the universe being the same in other parts of the universe is what confirmed the BBT for these scientists.

"Another conundrum thrown up by the basic Big Bang theory is how to explain the relative homogeneity and evenness of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. How did large-scale structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies develop out of what should have been a rather boringly amorphous and featureless fireball?

This would appear to be in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes an inexorable tendency towards entropy and uniformity and away from patterns and structures. If our universe had started out completely smooth, then it should have continued that way, and the universe today would contain nothing more than thinly spread dark matter along with less than one atom per cubic metre of hydrogen and helium gas, with no sign of the texture and complexity we see around us (stars, galaxies, a multitude of elements, life)."

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

 

[Taz]

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

No, you have zero interest in discussing the flood myth. Your entire OP is a 3 year old screaming "God killed my puppy I hate GOD!" You are incapable of carrying on a reasoned discussion about anything because you simply don't care to. You just want to call religious people stupid for having their beliefs. Any moron such as you can do that but why waste your time on it?

There are only two logical reasons; she has an ax to grind because of some perceived slight or she needs to make herself feel superior to others. Either way, I don’t believe she is getting much satisfaction from it.

Oh she is definitely in the "I'm better than you" camp. There's no doubt about that.

Wes, we're all better than you.

 

[Taz]

So now you're agreeing that outside our universe, there could be other universes, in other words, before the BB there could have been other universes already out there. It's a hard road, but I'm getting you there. Very, very slowly. But we'll get there.

I never argued against multiverses. Just your attempt to describe them. But the same principles that applies to ours applies to theirs. There is only one source and that source is eternal and unchanging.

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

You can't have any number of different laws that we do not know about. This is fallacious scientific thinking. There can't exist any number of possibilities through multiverses because then no experiment or observation that we do today would be valid. It could mean that it would not be successful in another universe or it may not apply to a different universe. Then there would be no way to falsify anything.

The way to these universes is supposed to be wormholes. They are also supposed to be a way to travel through time, i.e. time is shortened by going through a wormhole. What is the evidence for these wormholes?

My take is there are other dimensions instead of multiverses. For example, we know that spacetime curves when one can travel at the speed of light and that gravity will affect it and the traveler. It may not have to be the speed of light, but a percentage. Very fast space travel could open up pathways we never were able to find. Where's the evidence? One, the shape of the universe is described in the Bible. That it is flat or thin on one side and fast expanding like a curtain, and that it has edges and that the edges curve upward. We also have the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity and the standard cosmological model. With mathematics, we can envision how 3-D objects would appear in the 4th dimension.



One of the pieces of evidence she mentions for multidimensions is looking for particles. If we can show that a graviton exists, then it would be evidence for multiple dimensions. The graviton exists in our world one moment and could move into a higher dimension the next.

One evidence for no multiverses
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

Your link is what appears to be a failed experiment. Which in no way says that multiverses are not possible. Only when we can see into other universes will we know if they all have the same laws or not.

It wasn't a failed experiment, but a mistake made in looking for gravitational waves. The galactic dust caused their readings to be incorrect. What the initial success and aftermath of BICEP2 (was not correct) showed was evolution's cosmic inflation proponents were wrong. They were all too eager to propose what you propose of having any number of different laws in other universes and that cosmic inflation backs up the Big Bang Theory. All it did was show where cosmic inflation is not found.. Even though gravitational waves were discovered after this experiment, it does not mean that the cosmic inflation theory part of the Big Bang Theory holds, too. It's like they're science-ing the sh*t out of gravitational waves so that the cosmic inflation model can be propped up.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe. If it were not true, which it isn't, then our universe would look not as dense and similar as it expanded out from its initial "bang." It doesn't explain the clusters of our galaxies and stuff even if much of the materials in the mass can be pressed into a point of singularity. Moreover, as you know, the heat of the universe in one part of the universe being the same in other parts of the universe is what confirmed the BBT for these scientists.

"Another conundrum thrown up by the basic Big Bang theory is how to explain the relative homogeneity and evenness of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. How did large-scale structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies develop out of what should have been a rather boringly amorphous and featureless fireball?

This would appear to be in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes an inexorable tendency towards entropy and uniformity and away from patterns and structures. If our universe had started out completely smooth, then it should have continued that way, and the universe today would contain nothing more than thinly spread dark matter along with less than one atom per cubic metre of hydrogen and helium gas, with no sign of the texture and complexity we see around us (stars, galaxies, a multitude of elements, life)."

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

So waht, they move onto another experiment, that's what happens, sometimes the experiment works and sometimes it doesn't. What does all this have to do with possible other universes?

 

[ding]

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

No, you have zero interest in discussing the flood myth. Your entire OP is a 3 year old screaming "God killed my puppy I hate GOD!" You are incapable of carrying on a reasoned discussion about anything because you simply don't care to. You just want to call religious people stupid for having their beliefs. Any moron such as you can do that but why waste your time on it?

There are only two logical reasons; she has an ax to grind because of some perceived slight or she needs to make herself feel superior to others. Either way, I don’t believe she is getting much satisfaction from it.

Oh she is definitely in the "I'm better than you" camp. There's no doubt about that.

No doubt, but it is probably both.

 

[Taz]

Because taz is an anti science denier. He denies well known cosmological theories, and well supported archeological papers that show there was indeed a world wide flood. Not a flood that covered all the whole world, but it most certainly flooded the places where the people lived, the coastlines and the rivers etc. The places where the people live now.

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

No, you have zero interest in discussing the flood myth. Your entire OP is a 3 year old screaming "God killed my puppy I hate GOD!" You are incapable of carrying on a reasoned discussion about anything because you simply don't care to. You just want to call religious people stupid for having their beliefs. Any moron such as you can do that but why waste your time on it?

There are only two logical reasons; she has an ax to grind because of some perceived slight or she needs to make herself feel superior to others. Either way, I don’t believe she is getting much satisfaction from it.

Oh she is definitely in the "I'm better than you" camp. There's no doubt about that.

No doubt, but it is probably both.

Everyone is better than wes, the big spaces in his posts guy.

 

[ding]

I never said that there wasn't a regional flood. It's actually geologically documented that the Black Sea bursts it's dam or whatever and flooded the region. So if it was a regional flood, why would god tell Noah to save all the animals, since a regional flood doesn't make animals go extinct? That's the OP. Get it now? Need more help? Want a pacifier?

No, you have zero interest in discussing the flood myth. Your entire OP is a 3 year old screaming "God killed my puppy I hate GOD!" You are incapable of carrying on a reasoned discussion about anything because you simply don't care to. You just want to call religious people stupid for having their beliefs. Any moron such as you can do that but why waste your time on it?

There are only two logical reasons; she has an ax to grind because of some perceived slight or she needs to make herself feel superior to others. Either way, I don’t believe she is getting much satisfaction from it.

Oh she is definitely in the "I'm better than you" camp. There's no doubt about that.

No doubt, but it is probably both.

Everyone is better than wes, the big spaces in his posts guy.

I’m not better than anyone so your statement is false.

 

[Taz]

No, you have zero interest in discussing the flood myth. Your entire OP is a 3 year old screaming "God killed my puppy I hate GOD!" You are incapable of carrying on a reasoned discussion about anything because you simply don't care to. You just want to call religious people stupid for having their beliefs. Any moron such as you can do that but why waste your time on it?

There are only two logical reasons; she has an ax to grind because of some perceived slight or she needs to make herself feel superior to others. Either way, I don’t believe she is getting much satisfaction from it.

Oh she is definitely in the "I'm better than you" camp. There's no doubt about that.

No doubt, but it is probably both.

Everyone is better than wes, the big spaces in his posts guy.

I’m not better than anyone so your statement is false.

Ok, maybe not you.

 

[ding]

There are only two logical reasons; she has an ax to grind because of some perceived slight or she needs to make herself feel superior to others. Either way, I don’t believe she is getting much satisfaction from it.

Oh she is definitely in the "I'm better than you" camp. There's no doubt about that.

No doubt, but it is probably both.

Everyone is better than wes, the big spaces in his posts guy.

I’m not better than anyone so your statement is false.

Ok, maybe not you.

No maybe about it.

Additionally I am more than happy for you to believe you are better than others. That is your mistake to make.

 

[BreezeWood]

So now you're agreeing that outside our universe, there could be other universes, in other words, before the BB there could have been other universes already out there. It's a hard road, but I'm getting you there. Very, very slowly. But we'll get there.

I never argued against multiverses. Just your attempt to describe them. But the same principles that applies to ours applies to theirs. There is only one source and that source is eternal and unchanging.

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

You can't have any number of different laws that we do not know about. This is fallacious scientific thinking. There can't exist any number of possibilities through multiverses because then no experiment or observation that we do today would be valid. It could mean that it would not be successful in another universe or it may not apply to a different universe. Then there would be no way to falsify anything.

The way to these universes is supposed to be wormholes. They are also supposed to be a way to travel through time, i.e. time is shortened by going through a wormhole. What is the evidence for these wormholes?

My take is there are other dimensions instead of multiverses. For example, we know that spacetime curves when one can travel at the speed of light and that gravity will affect it and the traveler. It may not have to be the speed of light, but a percentage. Very fast space travel could open up pathways we never were able to find. Where's the evidence? One, the shape of the universe is described in the Bible. That it is flat or thin on one side and fast expanding like a curtain, and that it has edges and that the edges curve upward. We also have the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity and the standard cosmological model. With mathematics, we can envision how 3-D objects would appear in the 4th dimension.



One of the pieces of evidence she mentions for multidimensions is looking for particles. If we can show that a graviton exists, then it would be evidence for multiple dimensions. The graviton exists in our world one moment and could move into a higher dimension the next.

One evidence for no multiverses
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

Your link is what appears to be a failed experiment. Which in no way says that multiverses are not possible. Only when we can see into other universes will we know if they all have the same laws or not.

It wasn't a failed experiment, but a mistake made in looking for gravitational waves. The galactic dust caused their readings to be incorrect. What the initial success and aftermath of BICEP2 (was not correct) showed was evolution's cosmic inflation proponents were wrong. They were all too eager to propose what you propose of having any number of different laws in other universes and that cosmic inflation backs up the Big Bang Theory. All it did was show where cosmic inflation is not found.. Even though gravitational waves were discovered after this experiment, it does not mean that the cosmic inflation theory part of the Big Bang Theory holds, too. It's like they're science-ing the sh*t out of gravitational waves so that the cosmic inflation model can be propped up.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe. If it were not true, which it isn't, then our universe would look not as dense and similar as it expanded out from its initial "bang." It doesn't explain the clusters of our galaxies and stuff even if much of the materials in the mass can be pressed into a point of singularity. Moreover, as you know, the heat of the universe in one part of the universe being the same in other parts of the universe is what confirmed the BBT for these scientists.

"Another conundrum thrown up by the basic Big Bang theory is how to explain the relative homogeneity and evenness of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. How did large-scale structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies develop out of what should have been a rather boringly amorphous and featureless fireball?

This would appear to be in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes an inexorable tendency towards entropy and uniformity and away from patterns and structures. If our universe had started out completely smooth, then it should have continued that way, and the universe today would contain nothing more than thinly spread dark matter along with less than one atom per cubic metre of hydrogen and helium gas, with no sign of the texture and complexity we see around us (stars, galaxies, a multitude of elements, life)."

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe.

because if you continue the expanding cone it becomes an enclosed oblique remerging at its point of origin - all matters trajectories are elliptical finite angles ... BBT is cyclical.

 

[ding]

It is not possible for the universe to be infinite acting because it would eventually reach thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

 

[james bond]

I never argued against multiverses. Just your attempt to describe them. But the same principles that applies to ours applies to theirs. There is only one source and that source is eternal and unchanging.

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

You can't have any number of different laws that we do not know about. This is fallacious scientific thinking. There can't exist any number of possibilities through multiverses because then no experiment or observation that we do today would be valid. It could mean that it would not be successful in another universe or it may not apply to a different universe. Then there would be no way to falsify anything.

The way to these universes is supposed to be wormholes. They are also supposed to be a way to travel through time, i.e. time is shortened by going through a wormhole. What is the evidence for these wormholes?

My take is there are other dimensions instead of multiverses. For example, we know that spacetime curves when one can travel at the speed of light and that gravity will affect it and the traveler. It may not have to be the speed of light, but a percentage. Very fast space travel could open up pathways we never were able to find. Where's the evidence? One, the shape of the universe is described in the Bible. That it is flat or thin on one side and fast expanding like a curtain, and that it has edges and that the edges curve upward. We also have the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity and the standard cosmological model. With mathematics, we can envision how 3-D objects would appear in the 4th dimension.



One of the pieces of evidence she mentions for multidimensions is looking for particles. If we can show that a graviton exists, then it would be evidence for multiple dimensions. The graviton exists in our world one moment and could move into a higher dimension the next.

One evidence for no multiverses
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

Your link is what appears to be a failed experiment. Which in no way says that multiverses are not possible. Only when we can see into other universes will we know if they all have the same laws or not.

It wasn't a failed experiment, but a mistake made in looking for gravitational waves. The galactic dust caused their readings to be incorrect. What the initial success and aftermath of BICEP2 (was not correct) showed was evolution's cosmic inflation proponents were wrong. They were all too eager to propose what you propose of having any number of different laws in other universes and that cosmic inflation backs up the Big Bang Theory. All it did was show where cosmic inflation is not found.. Even though gravitational waves were discovered after this experiment, it does not mean that the cosmic inflation theory part of the Big Bang Theory holds, too. It's like they're science-ing the sh*t out of gravitational waves so that the cosmic inflation model can be propped up.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe. If it were not true, which it isn't, then our universe would look not as dense and similar as it expanded out from its initial "bang." It doesn't explain the clusters of our galaxies and stuff even if much of the materials in the mass can be pressed into a point of singularity. Moreover, as you know, the heat of the universe in one part of the universe being the same in other parts of the universe is what confirmed the BBT for these scientists.

"Another conundrum thrown up by the basic Big Bang theory is how to explain the relative homogeneity and evenness of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. How did large-scale structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies develop out of what should have been a rather boringly amorphous and featureless fireball?

This would appear to be in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes an inexorable tendency towards entropy and uniformity and away from patterns and structures. If our universe had started out completely smooth, then it should have continued that way, and the universe today would contain nothing more than thinly spread dark matter along with less than one atom per cubic metre of hydrogen and helium gas, with no sign of the texture and complexity we see around us (stars, galaxies, a multitude of elements, life)."

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

So waht, they move onto another experiment, that's what happens, sometimes the experiment works and sometimes it doesn't. What does all this have to do with possible other universes?

What do you mean what this means for possible other universes? It means there isn't any evidence for them. First, it was established that one couldn't have an universe where our science experiments would not work. What was determined was in the core of scientists who believe in cosmic expansion, in order to explain how a "big bang" could expand in the way our universe is laid out, would accept all possible worlds. It was pointed out to them, just like I am pointing out to you now. We can't have worlds where our science does not work. Second, there isn't any experiment where to show how something, even of infinite density and temperature could expand in such a way that our universe ends up in the manner that it did. There is no evidence for cosmic expansion which these scientists keep looking for. They proposed a cosmology, but nothing backs it up. The other thing that we didn't even discuss is one can't have any point of infinite mass or temperature because the math doesn't work. To have any ginormous "infinite" anything -- density, mass, temperature, widgets, anything -- one is dividing by zero, 1000/0 = infinity. I learned only God can divide by zero. If we can divide by zero, then 5 x 0 = 5. In regular math, 10/5 = 2 or 2 x 5 = 10. Only a creator can create five items to make 5 x 0 = 5.

What's equally strange is you just ignore what I proposed of the possibility of multiple dimensions. Why do you continue to believe in multiverses where our science does not work and of infinite possible outcomes? Wouldn't God live in one of them if this were true ha ha? Mine is backed by scientific principles while yours is backed by faith in the "religion" of singularity and cosmic expansion.

 

[james bond]

I never argued against multiverses. Just your attempt to describe them. But the same principles that applies to ours applies to theirs. There is only one source and that source is eternal and unchanging.

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

You can't have any number of different laws that we do not know about. This is fallacious scientific thinking. There can't exist any number of possibilities through multiverses because then no experiment or observation that we do today would be valid. It could mean that it would not be successful in another universe or it may not apply to a different universe. Then there would be no way to falsify anything.

The way to these universes is supposed to be wormholes. They are also supposed to be a way to travel through time, i.e. time is shortened by going through a wormhole. What is the evidence for these wormholes?

My take is there are other dimensions instead of multiverses. For example, we know that spacetime curves when one can travel at the speed of light and that gravity will affect it and the traveler. It may not have to be the speed of light, but a percentage. Very fast space travel could open up pathways we never were able to find. Where's the evidence? One, the shape of the universe is described in the Bible. That it is flat or thin on one side and fast expanding like a curtain, and that it has edges and that the edges curve upward. We also have the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity and the standard cosmological model. With mathematics, we can envision how 3-D objects would appear in the 4th dimension.



One of the pieces of evidence she mentions for multidimensions is looking for particles. If we can show that a graviton exists, then it would be evidence for multiple dimensions. The graviton exists in our world one moment and could move into a higher dimension the next.

One evidence for no multiverses
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

Your link is what appears to be a failed experiment. Which in no way says that multiverses are not possible. Only when we can see into other universes will we know if they all have the same laws or not.

It wasn't a failed experiment, but a mistake made in looking for gravitational waves. The galactic dust caused their readings to be incorrect. What the initial success and aftermath of BICEP2 (was not correct) showed was evolution's cosmic inflation proponents were wrong. They were all too eager to propose what you propose of having any number of different laws in other universes and that cosmic inflation backs up the Big Bang Theory. All it did was show where cosmic inflation is not found.. Even though gravitational waves were discovered after this experiment, it does not mean that the cosmic inflation theory part of the Big Bang Theory holds, too. It's like they're science-ing the sh*t out of gravitational waves so that the cosmic inflation model can be propped up.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe. If it were not true, which it isn't, then our universe would look not as dense and similar as it expanded out from its initial "bang." It doesn't explain the clusters of our galaxies and stuff even if much of the materials in the mass can be pressed into a point of singularity. Moreover, as you know, the heat of the universe in one part of the universe being the same in other parts of the universe is what confirmed the BBT for these scientists.

"Another conundrum thrown up by the basic Big Bang theory is how to explain the relative homogeneity and evenness of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. How did large-scale structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies develop out of what should have been a rather boringly amorphous and featureless fireball?

This would appear to be in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes an inexorable tendency towards entropy and uniformity and away from patterns and structures. If our universe had started out completely smooth, then it should have continued that way, and the universe today would contain nothing more than thinly spread dark matter along with less than one atom per cubic metre of hydrogen and helium gas, with no sign of the texture and complexity we see around us (stars, galaxies, a multitude of elements, life)."

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe.

View attachment 204477


because if you continue the expanding cone it becomes an enclosed oblique remerging at its point of origin - all matters trajectories are elliptical finite angles ... BBT is cyclical.

Again, these cosmologies such as infinite possibilities of universes do not work in observational science. Also, there is nothing that we observe where the layout of the matter in our universe can be explained through that diagram of expansion from a singularity. Even the math does not work. We found gravitational waves, but not like BICEP2. There isn't any experiment or observation to back the Guth model.

One of the things that I discussed was the edges of the universe. This has been peer-reviewed and it's a valid cosmology. We already determined that omega = 1 , so the universe is flat shaped.

Today, it is believed that the universe is shaped as

It's flat, but the Bible says it's flat like a sheet or shaped like a scroll, i.e. rectangular with edges that roll up like a scroll. It could be only on two sides where it curves if there are edges.

 

[Taz]

Oh she is definitely in the "I'm better than you" camp. There's no doubt about that.

No doubt, but it is probably both.

Everyone is better than wes, the big spaces in his posts guy.

I’m not better than anyone so your statement is false.

Ok, maybe not you.

No maybe about it.

Additionally I am more than happy for you to believe you are better than others. That is your mistake to make.

So you don't think that you're better than ANYONE on this planet? You're a fucking liar because you think you're better than me, let alone everyone else here.

 

[Taz]

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

You can't have any number of different laws that we do not know about. This is fallacious scientific thinking. There can't exist any number of possibilities through multiverses because then no experiment or observation that we do today would be valid. It could mean that it would not be successful in another universe or it may not apply to a different universe. Then there would be no way to falsify anything.

The way to these universes is supposed to be wormholes. They are also supposed to be a way to travel through time, i.e. time is shortened by going through a wormhole. What is the evidence for these wormholes?

My take is there are other dimensions instead of multiverses. For example, we know that spacetime curves when one can travel at the speed of light and that gravity will affect it and the traveler. It may not have to be the speed of light, but a percentage. Very fast space travel could open up pathways we never were able to find. Where's the evidence? One, the shape of the universe is described in the Bible. That it is flat or thin on one side and fast expanding like a curtain, and that it has edges and that the edges curve upward. We also have the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity and the standard cosmological model. With mathematics, we can envision how 3-D objects would appear in the 4th dimension.



One of the pieces of evidence she mentions for multidimensions is looking for particles. If we can show that a graviton exists, then it would be evidence for multiple dimensions. The graviton exists in our world one moment and could move into a higher dimension the next.

One evidence for no multiverses
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

Your link is what appears to be a failed experiment. Which in no way says that multiverses are not possible. Only when we can see into other universes will we know if they all have the same laws or not.

It wasn't a failed experiment, but a mistake made in looking for gravitational waves. The galactic dust caused their readings to be incorrect. What the initial success and aftermath of BICEP2 (was not correct) showed was evolution's cosmic inflation proponents were wrong. They were all too eager to propose what you propose of having any number of different laws in other universes and that cosmic inflation backs up the Big Bang Theory. All it did was show where cosmic inflation is not found.. Even though gravitational waves were discovered after this experiment, it does not mean that the cosmic inflation theory part of the Big Bang Theory holds, too. It's like they're science-ing the sh*t out of gravitational waves so that the cosmic inflation model can be propped up.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe. If it were not true, which it isn't, then our universe would look not as dense and similar as it expanded out from its initial "bang." It doesn't explain the clusters of our galaxies and stuff even if much of the materials in the mass can be pressed into a point of singularity. Moreover, as you know, the heat of the universe in one part of the universe being the same in other parts of the universe is what confirmed the BBT for these scientists.

"Another conundrum thrown up by the basic Big Bang theory is how to explain the relative homogeneity and evenness of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. How did large-scale structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies develop out of what should have been a rather boringly amorphous and featureless fireball?

This would appear to be in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes an inexorable tendency towards entropy and uniformity and away from patterns and structures. If our universe had started out completely smooth, then it should have continued that way, and the universe today would contain nothing more than thinly spread dark matter along with less than one atom per cubic metre of hydrogen and helium gas, with no sign of the texture and complexity we see around us (stars, galaxies, a multitude of elements, life)."

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

So waht, they move onto another experiment, that's what happens, sometimes the experiment works and sometimes it doesn't. What does all this have to do with possible other universes?

What do you mean what this means for possible other universes? It means there isn't any evidence for them. First, it was established that one couldn't have an universe where our science experiments would not work. What was determined was in the core of scientists who believe in cosmic expansion, in order to explain how a "big bang" could expand in the way our universe is laid out, would accept all possible worlds. It was pointed out to them, just like I am pointing out to you now. We can't have worlds where our science does not work. Second, there isn't any experiment where to show how something, even of infinite density and temperature could expand in such a way that our universe ends up in the manner that it did. There is no evidence for cosmic expansion which these scientists keep looking for. They proposed a cosmology, but nothing backs it up. The other thing that we didn't even discuss is one can't have any point of infinite mass or temperature because the math doesn't work. To have any ginormous "infinite" anything -- density, mass, temperature, widgets, anything -- one is dividing by zero, 1000/0 = infinity. I learned only God can divide by zero. If we can divide by zero, then 5 x 0 = 5. In regular math, 10/5 = 2 or 2 x 5 = 10. Only a creator can create five items to make 5 x 0 = 5.

What's equally strange is you just ignore what I proposed of the possibility of multiple dimensions. Why do you continue to believe in multiverses where our science does not work and of infinite possible outcomes? Wouldn't God live in one of them if this were true ha ha? Mine is backed by scientific principles while yours is backed by faith in the "religion" of singularity and cosmic expansion.

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

 

[Taz]

How do you know that other universes don't have different laws? Can you see into them?

You can't have any number of different laws that we do not know about. This is fallacious scientific thinking. There can't exist any number of possibilities through multiverses because then no experiment or observation that we do today would be valid. It could mean that it would not be successful in another universe or it may not apply to a different universe. Then there would be no way to falsify anything.

The way to these universes is supposed to be wormholes. They are also supposed to be a way to travel through time, i.e. time is shortened by going through a wormhole. What is the evidence for these wormholes?

My take is there are other dimensions instead of multiverses. For example, we know that spacetime curves when one can travel at the speed of light and that gravity will affect it and the traveler. It may not have to be the speed of light, but a percentage. Very fast space travel could open up pathways we never were able to find. Where's the evidence? One, the shape of the universe is described in the Bible. That it is flat or thin on one side and fast expanding like a curtain, and that it has edges and that the edges curve upward. We also have the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity and the standard cosmological model. With mathematics, we can envision how 3-D objects would appear in the 4th dimension.



One of the pieces of evidence she mentions for multidimensions is looking for particles. If we can show that a graviton exists, then it would be evidence for multiple dimensions. The graviton exists in our world one moment and could move into a higher dimension the next.

One evidence for no multiverses
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

Your link is what appears to be a failed experiment. Which in no way says that multiverses are not possible. Only when we can see into other universes will we know if they all have the same laws or not.

It wasn't a failed experiment, but a mistake made in looking for gravitational waves. The galactic dust caused their readings to be incorrect. What the initial success and aftermath of BICEP2 (was not correct) showed was evolution's cosmic inflation proponents were wrong. They were all too eager to propose what you propose of having any number of different laws in other universes and that cosmic inflation backs up the Big Bang Theory. All it did was show where cosmic inflation is not found.. Even though gravitational waves were discovered after this experiment, it does not mean that the cosmic inflation theory part of the Big Bang Theory holds, too. It's like they're science-ing the sh*t out of gravitational waves so that the cosmic inflation model can be propped up.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe. If it were not true, which it isn't, then our universe would look not as dense and similar as it expanded out from its initial "bang." It doesn't explain the clusters of our galaxies and stuff even if much of the materials in the mass can be pressed into a point of singularity. Moreover, as you know, the heat of the universe in one part of the universe being the same in other parts of the universe is what confirmed the BBT for these scientists.

"Another conundrum thrown up by the basic Big Bang theory is how to explain the relative homogeneity and evenness of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. How did large-scale structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies develop out of what should have been a rather boringly amorphous and featureless fireball?

This would appear to be in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes an inexorable tendency towards entropy and uniformity and away from patterns and structures. If our universe had started out completely smooth, then it should have continued that way, and the universe today would contain nothing more than thinly spread dark matter along with less than one atom per cubic metre of hydrogen and helium gas, with no sign of the texture and complexity we see around us (stars, galaxies, a multitude of elements, life)."

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe.

View attachment 204477


because if you continue the expanding cone it becomes an enclosed oblique remerging at its point of origin - all matters trajectories are elliptical finite angles ... BBT is cyclical.

Again, these cosmologies such as infinite possibilities of universes do not work in observational science. Also, there is nothing that we observe where the layout of the matter in our universe can be explained through that diagram of expansion from a singularity. Even the math does not work. We found gravitational waves, but not like BICEP2. There isn't any experiment or observation to back the Guth model.

One of the things that I discussed was the edges of the universe. This has been peer-reviewed and it's a valid cosmology. We already determined that omega = 1 , so the universe is flat shaped.

Today, it is believed that the universe is shaped as

It's flat, but the Bible says it's flat like a sheet or shaped like a scroll, i.e. rectangular with edges that roll up like a scroll. It could be only on two sides where it curves if there are edges.

You just don't understand what you're looking at. That's not the shape of the universe, that's as far to where visible light has reached us.

 

[james bond]

Taz BreezeWood and others. Your opposition has come as far as I can, but you need to pick up the ball and provide some answers. It's like we got you in a corner and said, "Gotcha." While I have provided answers or theories the creation scientists are working on, your "theories" should start providing some answers if your cosmic inflation model is true.

Here is a brief article that lists the questions that need to be answered. That graph we see everywhere that looks like a wine glass or balloon tipped sideways may not be true unless you can provide more evidence. It leads me to suspect it isn't just based on the graph being everywhere and is the one used to show that the Big Bang started from a single point. The results do not match the explanations. What we really have found is the flat universe gets expanded like a cloth. What's a mystery is why we see the opaque CMB in every direction.

Cosmic Inflation: How It Gave the Universe the Ultimate Kickstart (Infographic)

Expansion of the universe is not even in every direction
"From current data, it looks like the universe is even, but that's because our instruments aren't advanced enough to really go beyond a certain limit. (The limit of light). In reality, the expansion of the universe is governed by the gravitational wave radiant energy density created by objects coupled by a gravitational force. The closer 2 objects are rotating and accelerating toward each other the more gravitational radiant energy they emit. This increases the amount of expansion more than a uniform sphere. If we had accurate enough instruments we could measure the average radiant energy density throughout the universe and create a detailed “map” of the expansion of the universe. Scientists agree that the universe is most likely modeled as a irregular 3D shape." William Guo (Nobel Prize candidate)

On The Expansion of The Universe Through Gravitational Waves

The universe is not expanding uniformly
The Universe Is Not Expanding Uniformly - Universe Today

 

[ding]

No doubt, but it is probably both.

Everyone is better than wes, the big spaces in his posts guy.

I’m not better than anyone so your statement is false.

Ok, maybe not you.

No maybe about it.

Additionally I am more than happy for you to believe you are better than others. That is your mistake to make.

So you don't think that you're better than ANYONE on this planet? You're a fucking liar because you think you're better than me, let alone everyone else here.

Nope. We are all the same. Creatures.

I don't judge the person. I can judge behaviors, I can judge actions, I can judge accomplishments. But in the end we are all human and our worth is no more or no less than others. It's the basis our Founding fathers took when they wrote, all me are created equal.

 

[Taz]

Taz BreezeWood and others. Your opposition has come as far as I can, but you need to pick up the ball and provide some answers. It's like we got you in a corner and said, "Gotcha." While I have provided answers or theories the creation scientists are working on, your "theories" should start providing some answers if your cosmic inflation model is true.

Here is a brief article that lists the questions that need to be answered. That graph we see everywhere that looks like a wine glass or balloon tipped sideways may not be true unless you can provide more evidence. It leads me to suspect it isn't just based on the graph being everywhere and is the one used to show that the Big Bang started from a single point. The results do not match the explanations. What we really have found is the flat universe gets expanded like a cloth. What's a mystery is why we see the opaque CMB in every direction.

Cosmic Inflation: How It Gave the Universe the Ultimate Kickstart (Infographic)

Expansion of the universe is not even in every direction
"From current data, it looks like the universe is even, but that's because our instruments aren't advanced enough to really go beyond a certain limit. (The limit of light). In reality, the expansion of the universe is governed by the gravitational wave radiant energy density created by objects coupled by a gravitational force. The closer 2 objects are rotating and accelerating toward each other the more gravitational radiant energy they emit. This increases the amount of expansion more than a uniform sphere. If we had accurate enough instruments we could measure the average radiant energy density throughout the universe and create a detailed “map” of the expansion of the universe. Scientists agree that the universe is most likely modeled as a irregular 3D shape." William Guo (Nobel Prize candidate)

On The Expansion of The Universe Through Gravitational Waves

The universe is not expanding uniformly
The Universe Is Not Expanding Uniformly - Universe Today

What answers are you looking for? A real science site will explain their theory, what else are you looking for?

"Creation science" is an oxymoron because no real science is involved.