FBM wrote:So, what is the difference between Hellboy, Dath Vader, Bobafett, Harry Potter, Godzilla ... and the Singularity?Mumbo jumbo unlike an invisible, undetectable, all-powerful "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps"
FBM wrote:So, by your definition, all the atheists that are denying God as a precondition to become 'members of the club' are with some form of mental disorders, or what?Denialism is a mental disease.
denialist
Line breaks: de¦nial|ist
Pronunciation: /dɪˈnʌɪ(ə)lɪst /
Definition of denialist in English:
NOUN
A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:
FBM wrote:You don't understand something. You are not only denying God - you are denying the possibility of any intelligence to have ever existed before us,They're all more plausible than your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps."
...and hence you are denying the future of the humanity - with your Singularity it comes out that it is impossible for the humans to achieve immortality. I am not going to comment here who is greater denialist.
FBM wrote:What you are talking about - your Singularity is not supported by any evidence and any truth values. BTW I am verifying exactly the possibility of it to ever had any partial truth value - ten to the power of minus 84 or something.A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:
FBM wrote:You are denying the only hypothesis that is not causing an avalanche of contradictions with the fundamentals sciences. The Universe might have not always existed, the Intelligence in the Universe might have not always existed but to us any point of time before we have lost key information about the explanation of our world is technically 'always'. Thus it is much better to accept technically that the space of the SS must have always existed (or at least in the periof 13. Bya - 4.38 BYa), as it has been onto the moment of formation of the SS - anything else is worse as an explanation (unless supported by any real evidence, different from Singularity). From where are you so sure that the Singularity is not God Himself, as the only way to acquire mass, energy and moment without having them a priori at hand is to posess intelligence and to thing out something. BTW consensus is with 's'.The only way that an atheist could be a denialist would be if there was a majority concensus
FBM wrote:Everywhere. Your God hypothesis suggests that the hypothesis is not ours - in other words you are excluding a priori yourself from considering that hypothesis (or at least I understand it in that way).Where did I ever deny either the possibility of a god or your surreptitious synonym for one, the IDer?
FBM wrote:... and that you have no idea of how the assumptions of the Big Bang might look like ... and why.All I've been saying all along is that your argument for your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps" is shot full of fallacies
...of the species (not of separate individuals). So you are of the opinion to exhaust the resources of the planet as fast as possible - and where are we going to go after that?
Can you name some planet nearby with similar tectonics and atmosphere ... and clean water ... for I cannot guess about any such? You may explain that some day to your grandchildren why they should run in the park with gas masks - because their parents & grandparents have been too stupid and too greedy not to see the things in-time and to take some measures ... after they have believed blindly in some Singularity that will save them somehow ... from themselves.
FBM wrote:Can you name at least one prominent physicist, who is ready to part with the laws of conservation in physics for the sake of the Big Bang 'theory'?If a majority of scientists and/or historians accepted that such a thing were real, and then I denied it, I'd be a denialist.
FBM wrote:After you present evidence about the launching of Time by the Big Bang 'theory'. You have no idea even how you could detect the Time physically, haven't you? Not to say that you don't know whether the physical manifestation of Time is 'analogue' (some continuum) or 'digital' (the smallest period in the Universe, for example) ... not to mention that you don't even have any clue which part of the RF spectrum and/or which particle might have the smallest possible period in the Universe.Unless, of course, you produce some evidence.
FBM wrote:1. You have to prove that such thing is able to exist ... outside the Time. 2. You will have to explain what existence outside time is consistent with the laws of the fundamental sciences. 3. You have to prove that it (the Singularity) has the capacity to accumulate infinite temperature (whatever this might mean) to launch the process of creation. 4. ... but before that you will have to prove that the Big Bang can appear out of infinite temperature accumulated into Nothing. 5. You will have to prove that a concept with absolute impossibility to exist in the physical world can possess attributes that will significantly improve its probability of existence ... and explain also what improvement of impossibility into possibility is supposed to mean. What about the 'creation' abilities - what evidence you have that your impossible to exist singularity is able to create possible to exist vast Universe, with huge energy, huge mass and huge diversity of chemical elements --- out of something that has never has any time component?There's a shitload more evidence for a gravitational singularity than there is for either your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps"
BTW you are the worst case scenario of a 'student' - you have double blind belief in some pseudo-scientific authorities presenting themselves as wizards (a logical fallacy called argument from authority). They are simply relying on your inability to understand the mumbo jumbo they are presenting (argumentum ad ignorantum). Obviously it give the results (in the form of a bandwagon fallacy). After that you slide down the waterfall of confirmation bias - confusion of correlation and causation - excluded middle - half truths - observational selection and the crown of everything is attaching attributes of existence to impossible to exist (and to be understood) concepts. When you cannot understand a concept you cannot discuss is - which is 'accepted' and interpreted as tacit agreement and acknowledgement of that 'theory'.
double blind belief
Really. You need to back down from inserting random "science-y" phrases in order to make yourself seem more knowledgeable than you are. You're just exposing your own ignorance with this transparent ploy. your inability to understand the mumbo jumbo
Background Radiation
In every direction, there is a very low energy and very uniform radiation that we see filling the Universe. This is called the 3 Degree Kelvin Background Radiation, or the Cosmic Background Radiation, or the Microwave Background. These names come about because this radiation is essentially a black body with temperature slightly less than 3 degrees Kelvin (about 2.76 K), which peaks in the microwave portion of the spectrum. This radiation is the strongest evidence for the validity of the hot big bang model. The adjacent figure shows the essentially perfect blackbody spectrum obtained by NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite.
The following image was taken by COBE. It shows the temperature of the cosmic background radiation plotted in galactic coordinates, with red cooler and blue and violet hotter (Ref). This dipole anisotropy is because of the Doppler effect. If the Earth moves with respect to the microwave background, it will be blue shifted to a higher effective temperature in the direction of the Earth's motion and red shifted to a lower effective temperature in the direction opposite the Earth's motion.
The indication of the above image is that the local group of galaxies, to which the Earth belongs, is moving at about 600 km/s with respect to the background radiation. It is not know why the Earth is moving with such a high velocity relative to the background radiation.
Evidence for the Big Bang
The cosmic background radiation (sometimes called the CBR), is the afterglow of the big bang, cooled to a faint whisper in the microwave spectrum by the expansion of the Universe for 15 billion years (which causes the radiation originally produced in the big bang to redshift to longer wavelengths). As shown in the adjacent intensity map of the background radiation in different directions taken by the Differential Microwave Radiometer on NASA's COBE satellite, it is not completely uniform, though it is very nearly so (Ref). To obtain this image, the average dipole anisotropy exhibited in the image above has been subtracted out, since it represents a Doppler shift due to the Earth's motion. Thus, what remains should represent true variations in the temperature of the background radiation.
In this image, red denotes hotter fluctuations and blue and black denote cooler fluctuations around the average. These fluctuations are extremely small, representing deviations from the average of only about 1/100,000 of the average temperature of the observed background radiation.
Problems with the Uniformity
The highly isotropic nature of the cosmic background radiation indicates that the early stages of the Universe were almost completely uniform. This raises two problems for the big bang theory.
First, when we look at the microwave background coming from widely separated parts of the sky it can be shown that these regions are too separated to have been able to communicate with each other even with signals travelling at light velocity. Thus, how did they know to have almost exactly the same temperature? This general problem is called the horizon problem.
Second, the present Universe is homogenous and isotropic, but only on very large scales. For scales the size of superclusters and smaller the luminous matter in the universe is quite lumpy, as illustrated in the following figure.
FIGURE: Data from the survey of galaxies. The voids and "walls" that form the large-scale structure are mapped here by 11,000 galaxies. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is at the center. The outer radius is at a distance of approximately 450 million light-years. Obscuration by the plane of the Milky Way is responsible for the missing pie-shaped sectors to the right and left. Click on the image to get a larger version. (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1993. Northern data (top)--Margaret Geller and John Huchra, Southern data (bottom)--Luiz da Costa et al. Quoted in Cosmology, a Research Briefing, National Academy of Sciences.)
Thus, the discovery of small deviations from smoothness (anisotopies) in the cosmic microwave background is welcome, for it provides at least the possibility for the seeds around which structure formed in the later Universe. However, as we shall see, we are still far from a quantitative understanding of how this came to be.
FBM wrote:No, I haven't forgotten any part. I omitted it on purpose in order to deprive you from taking out some new red herring ... as you actually did, despite of that ... and also despite of your personal lectures on logical fallacies.You forgot the other part
What are your personal assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' - you are free to present all the circumstances around the launching of the Big Bang - I am interested especially in the 'infinite density of the Singularity' - what is infinite density of a point with dimensions not more than several yoctometers (10^-24) supposed to mean? ... and which is the material carrier (chemical element?! or particle ?! or what) of that density?
You obviously can't understand something - it doesn't matter how small a yoctopoint may be, and how much high temperature or super-high density it might have - it still cannot exist without a time component (before the launching of the Time).
