Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

You have nothing.

I may have nothing, but what you have is even worse, for you have Nothing out of Nowhere. Where is your definition of Infinite Temperature. Pay attention that in your Singularity you have Infinite Temperature (ten trillion trillion times greater than the T of the core of the Sun), Infinite Gravitation (ten trillion trillion times greater than the gravity of Sagittarius A*) within super-constrained space (less that 3.10^-11 - smaller than the smallest atom), and besides that you should have all these in infinitely brilliant structure. In comparison to your Nothing my 'nothing' is like an encyclopedic record.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Standard Model 4:0 "personal 45% god/ILF-of-the-gaps"

I wonder, do you wake up every morning wondering why the Nobel Committee hasn't called? Since you're smarter than all the world's scientists combined since Aristotle, you'd think they'd like to talk to you, eh? Why do you think you're not recognized internationally? Conspiracy?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/emot-tinfoil.gif

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

I wonder, do you wake up every morning wondering why the Nobel Committee hasn't called? Since you're smarter than all the world's scientists combined since Aristotle, you'd think they'd like to talk to you, eh? Why do you think you're not recognized internationally? Conspiracy?

authority fallacy! again and again and again and again...

0 Replies

again for fmb

Quote:

Devotees of science often assume that what is called science is real and true. It must be. Otherwise, their faith is broken. Their superficial understanding is shattered. Their “superior view” of the world is torpedoed.]

0 Replies

again

Quote:

Devotees of science often assume that what is called science is real and true. It must be. Otherwise, their faith is broken. Their superficial understanding is shattered. Their “superior view” of the world is torpedoed.

0 Replies

and again

Quote:

Devotees of science often assume that what is called science is real and true. It must be. Otherwise, their faith is broken. Their superficial understanding is shattered. Their “superior view” of the world is torpedoed.

0 Replies

to fbm

Quote:

Devotees of science often assume that what is called science is real and true. It must be. Otherwise, their faith is broken. Their superficial understanding is shattered. Their “superior view” of the world is torpedoed.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Standard Model 4:0 "personal 45% god/ILF-of-the-gaps"

This remains a claim without any justification, unless you explain 'the score'.

FBM wrote:

I wonder, do you wake up every morning wondering why the Nobel Committee hasn't called?

No, because my major does not have any Nobel Prize awards.

FBM wrote:

Since you're smarter than all the world's scientists

... and how did you come to such a conclusion? The circumstance that you publish all kinds of irrelevant stuff and irrelevant references, considering other issues on some other occasions, and paste them 'out of nowhere' into the discussion does not necessarily mean that all these scientists are at your opinion (if you have any of the kind at all), and are 'leading extramural dispute' with my posts. This is your understanding of the things, but the things do not stay that way. Some of the scientists you quote are agnostics and have an opinion on the main issues discussed here, very close to my conceptions.
If you have anything to say on your behalf - say it, but stop talking on behalf of some other people ... without their knowledge and consent.

FBM wrote:

... combined since Aristotle, you'd think they'd like to talk to you, eh?

The math logic is developed by George Boole, Augustus de Morgan, Charles Peirce, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russel, Ernst Schroeder, Giuseppe Peano, Nikolay Lobachevski, succeeded by the advanced contributions of Bolzano, Augustin-Louis Cauchy, George Cantor & Katz. In the 20th c. Alfred Tarski developed the theory of the formal models, and the predicate logic is developed by Gottlob Frege, Charles Peirce, Saul Kripke, Barcan Marcus, Nickolas Recher, Eric Hammer, and the belief revision system is developed by Frank Ramsey, and also Chomsky bros. You and your fellow-atheists may go on the satellite TV and prove that all these brilliant mathematicians have 'insignificant contributions' in comparison to the ability of the Big Bang 'theory' to exist in tautology, full of contradictions with most of the laws of the natural sciences. Not to start mentioning the physicists here, whose laws your favorite 'theory' is violating 'for breakfast'.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Standard Model 4:0 "personal 45% god/ILF-of-the-gaps"
This remains a claim without any justification, unless you explain 'the score'.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/facepalm.gif

Are you really not paying attention, or is your cognitive capacity really that low? You're the one who brought up the 4%.

Quote:

No, because my major does not have any Nobel Prize awards.

Color me surprised.

Quote:

... and how did you come to such a conclusion?

You're the one going around saying that you know how/why all the scientists are wrong. You tell me.

Quote:

The circumstance that you publish all kinds of irrelevant stuff and irrelevant references...

The fact that you are incapable of understanding the relevance of my references is telling in itself.

Quote:

The math logic is developed by George Boole, Augustus de Morgan...

Here's your new English vocabulary item for the day: plagiarism.

What does your "personal 45% blah blah blah" explain, Herod? What good is it?

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/planck-composite-all-sky.jpg

0 Replies

@Herald,

You clearly misplaced the semicolon. Your understanding of grammar seems to almost as bad as your understanding of physics.

But why should I answer any more of your silly questions until you do what you said you would do.
http://able2know.org/topic/226001-239#post-5874145

I will wait for you math that you promised. It appears your claim you would provide it with pleasure was just a lie.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

You clearly misplaced the semicolon. Your understanding of grammar seems to almost as bad as your understanding of physics.

Do you have the definition of Infinite Temperature, or you have re-qualified yourself into a grammar school teacher?

parados wrote:

But why should I answer any more of your silly questions

     Because they are 1:1 over the silly assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory'. BTW you will have to prove that when a 'theory' claims that the Singularity has had Infinite Temperature and Infinite Gravation, asking a question about your personal understanding and definition of Temperature & Infinite Temperature is a silly question.
   1. Is irrelevant to the theme, OR
   2. Is frivulous or lacking seriousness.
You will have to prove that:
- All of a sudden and out of nowhere and out of Nothing the Big Bang acquires somehow Infinite Temperature.
- ... and what is your definition of Infinite Temperature?
... is a joke. I am not going to argue that it really is a joke, but this is not because of the question.

2 Replies

@Herald,

I see you aren't going to provide your math as promised. No surprise there. You might want to review the question you asked when you promised to provide your math. Changing the question now isn't a valid reason for not providing your math. It simply shows you never had any math to provide and are now trying to pretend you asked something you didn't.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

You will have to prove that:
- All of a sudden and out of nowhere and out of Nothing the Big Bang acquires somehow Infinite Temperature.
- ... and what is your definition of Infinite Temperature?
... is a joke. I am not going to argue that it really is a joke, but this is not because of the question.

The Big Bang didn't acquire infinite Temperature. The singularity had infinite Temperature. The Big Bang, which refers to the time immediately after the singularity stops existing and the universe starts, "acquired" a large temperature that started cooling down as the universe expanded. Why should I have to prove something that isn't in the theory? You made it up so I have no reason to defend it.

But I am still waiting for the math you promised you would provide.

1 Reply

@parados,

He's playing hide and seek using diversionary tactics that only reveals his childishness

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

He's playing hide and seek using diversionary tactics that only reveals his childishness

Ci, I knew that I am missing something, and I was wondering all the time who is missing. Do you have a definition of Temperature and Infinite Temperature, or you prefer writing philosophical dramas.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Hey, idiot, it's FACT - your denial is your problem.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

The Big Bang didn't acquire infinite Temperature.

The official claim is all of a sudden and out of nowhere appears the Singularity with Infinite Temperature (and Gravitation, BTW).

parados wrote:

The singularity had infinite Temperature.

... from where? ... and how has the Singularity appeared (without the Time component) in the first place?

parados wrote:

The Big Bang, which refers to the time immediately after the singularity stops existing

This must be some new episode of the Big Bang. What do you mean by 'time immediately after' - how much is that as a number?

parados wrote:

... after the singularity stops existing

'Stops existing' assumes 'existence' before that, and the existence (of the Singularity) supposes existence of Time before the launching of the Big Bang - how does that happen?

parados wrote:

... and the universe starts, "acquired" a large temperature that started cooling down as the universe expanded.

'The Universe starts (existing)' - can you explain that process-by-process - starts out of what, how, and why? Where have you proved that the Big Bang (if has ever happened) is able to create 3D-space (out of whatsoever)?

parados wrote:

Why should I have to prove something that isn't in the theory?

Because most of the things are the case 'isn't in the theory'. The very circumstance that the 'theory' embezzles some claim or another does not necessarily mean that this claim 'is in the theory' - especially if it is impossible to exist, and/or appear or disappear in the physical world, especially in the case 'out of nowhere'.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Hey, idiot, it's FACT - your denial is your problem

Which is that "it's", wretch?

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/Science-vs-BS-e1403720137245.jpg

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know