Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

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

All of a sudden? It seems you don't understand the theory at all. All of a sudden, the singularity ended and our universe began. The singularity didn't all of a sudden appear.

Quote:

'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?

No, it doesn't assume that at all. YOU assume that because you are insisting on applying quantum theory to the singularity. That is not possible to do unless you present your math. Which by the way, I see you still have not done as you said you would gladly do. Where is the math you promised?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

All of a sudden? It seems you don't understand the theory at all. All of a sudden, the singularity ended and our universe began. The singularity didn't all of a sudden appear.

Not to say that it could not have existed without the Time component, in the first place. Existence is a process that can not happen in the real world without a Time component.

parados wrote:

Quote:
'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?
No, it doesn't assume that at all.

This is not QMs, this is math logic - can you explain how can something stop existing without existing before that, and how can something exist out of time - can you give an example in the real world with some physical non-fictitious components and patches?

parados wrote:

YOU assume that because you are insisting on applying quantum theory to the singularity.

Wow, wow, wait a minute - I am not insisting on anything - it should be applicable by default.

parados wrote:

That is not possible to do unless you present your math.

What math - math is logical inference over present observations by means of which are derived some conclusions about past events, and here you need verification and validation of the assumptions of that past events (if has happened) by means of something different. You cannot verify an inference with the same preconditions on the grounds of which it has been made. This is called tautology in logic.

parados wrote:

Which by the way, I see you still have not done as you said you would gladly do. Where is the math you promised?

This fictitious math is your understanding of the world. The world does not drive on your understanding of it, but just the opposite - your understanding should drive on the physical realities as they are ... and as they come out to be on the grounds of verification and validation tests by century knowledge of the fundamental sciences, for otherwise you will have to demolish the fundamentals sciences.
BTW there is one more Infinity in the Singularity - it is the infinite arrogance of the apologetics of the Big Bang 'theory' based on the distortion to infinity of the physical reality and distortion of the applicability of the other knowledge of the mankind and trying to remodel the physical reality to match the fake claims of the Big Bang 'theory' ... that I don't even engage to comment further.

2 Replies

@Herald,

How about the infinite arrogance of someone who claims to know more than all the scientists put together over the past thousand years? All for a "personal 45% god/ILF-of-the-gaps." Laughing

1 Reply

@FBM,

1. It becomes obvious from that video that Carl Sagan is agnostic - he equally accepts the hypothesis of the Universe to have always existed and to have been created by what/whomsoever. I am saying quite the same - unless we find some way to verify the assumptions of the 'creation' of the Universe (and whether it has been created at all in the first place) - nothing could be claimed for sure.
2. RE: the nucleotides - 'they can form quite happily on their own'
This is not true. You cannot make DNA in a bio-lab by stochastics - left to happen 'quite happily' (somehow), 'on their own' ... with the time. BTW you cannot verify that in a lab with a biosphere.
Here comes the end of my watching that video. Sorry, merci, thank you.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

How about the infinite arrogance of someone who claims to know more than all the scientists put together over the past thousand years?

Perhaps you envision here the Big Bang 'theory' that is trying to ignore its unsolvable contradictions with the fundamental sciences - energy conservation laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, the achievements of the math logic and the definitions of the QMs for Temperature and Gravitation ... to name just a few.

2 Replies

@Herald,

1. He does not accept the creator hypothesis as equal to the mundane one. You're looking through the lens of motivated reasoning.
2. Look at the claims and look at the experiments. There are several.

Got that call from the Nobel Committee yet?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
How about the infinite arrogance of someone who claims to know more than all the scientists put together over the past thousand years?
Perhaps you envision here the Big Bang 'theory' that is trying to ignore the energy conservation laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, the achievements of the math logic and the definitions of the QMs for Temperature and Gravitation ... to name just a few.

You're covering old ground. I've already debunked those claims in this very thread. Pay attention. Take notes, if you have to.

Maybe the Nobel Committee used snail mail and it got lost? Maybe you should call them up and ask.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I've already debunked those claims in this very thread.

Where - where 'have you debunked' the applicability and proved release of applicability of the law for conservation of the energy for example to theories that are standing above the things - like Big Bang, for example.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I've already debunked those claims in this very thread.
Where - where 'have you debunked' the inapplicability of the law for conservation of the energy for example to theories that are standing above the things - like Big Bang, for example.

Read the thread and pay attention this time. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly for your amusement.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly for your amusement.

There is no such danger of repeating yourself, as you say almost nothing (if we don't count the stochastic references published on other occasions).

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly for your amusement.
There is no such danger of repeating yourself, as you say almost nothing (if we don't count the stochastic references published on other occasions).

Stochastically pay stochastic attention to the stochastic thread. Your stochastic fallacies have stochastically been debunked already. Stochastic.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
How about the infinite arrogance of someone who claims to know more than all the scientists put together over the past thousand years?
Perhaps you envision here the Big Bang 'theory' that is trying to ignore its unsolvable contradictions with the fundamental sciences - energy conservation laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, the achievements of the math logic and the definitions of the QMs for Temperature and Gravitation ... to name just a few.

You've got a long row to hoe if you're intenting to use Sagan to support your "personal 45% god/ILF-of-the-gaps."

Quotes from the man:

Evolving before our eyes has been a God of the Gaps; that is, whatever it is we cannot explain lately is attributed to God.

For a long time the human instinct to understand was thwarted by facile religious explanations.

Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries.

And in this last one, just substitute your "personal 45% god/ILF-of-the-gaps" in for "God":

If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding Universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created, how did that happen? In many cultures, the customary answer is that a God or Gods created the Universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude that the Universe always existed? That there's no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, questions that were once treated only in religion and myth.

You will not find an ally in Sagan.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Not to say that it could not have existed without the Time component, in the first place. Existence is a process that can not happen in the real world without a Time component.

Which is precisely why the Big Bang Theory says the singularity was not part of the present universe which you are calling the "real world."

Quote:

This is not QMs, this is math logic - can you explain how can something stop existing without existing before that, and how can something exist out of time - can you give an example in the real world with some physical non-fictitious components and patches?

Already presented to you. What is the temperature of infinity? What is the time of infinity? Why would I present something from this universe to describe the singularity when the singularity is not from this universe? Again you fall into the same idiot trap you always fall into. You can't grasp something so you resort to childish claims that you expect others to defend.

Quote:

Wow, wow, wait a minute - I am not insisting on anything - it should be applicable by default.

No, it's not. I have asked you repeatedly for your math to prove this and you have refused to show it to us. Without your math, we are left with the math that physicists use which I linked to quite some time ago.

Quote:

What math

The math you said you would be happy to provide but instead you come up with lame statements that are not calculations and have no numbers or math symbols in them. It seems you have no math. You were simply pretending you did. You were LYING. Something you seem to do on a regular basis, both to others and to yourself.

Let me repeat this once again since you said you would provide your math.
Where is the math you promised?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Where is the math you promised?

     We have not come up to the math yet - before that we will have to define the formal model of conceptualization of the process.
     So and so we will never be able to define the Big Bang & the Singularity, what we can define however is the present day Universe as we know (and don't know) it.
     We have the tuple (KM, KE, DM, DE, STR)
KM - is the space of the known matter, and the elements of this space are km = [type of matter (elementary particles?!)]; KE - is the space of the known energy, and the elements of this space are ke = [type of energy(kinetic, potential, etc.)]; DM - is the space of the dark matter, and the elements of this space are dm = [type of dark matter]; DE - is the space of the dark energy, and the elements of this space are de = [type of dark energy]; STR - is the space of the structures (chemical elements, chemical compounds, geological structures, planets, satellites, star systems, galaxies, etc.), and any element of the structures has the form str = [[type of matter],[type of energy],[type of dark matter],[type of dark energy], [information]]; Time is a special case of structure - it has no matter, no energy, no dark matter, no dark energy, but it has only the [Information] component, so we define Time as T = {Tstr: str [[],[],[],[],[Inf]] Є STR]. With that model you can describe everything you have at present, the problem is how you will describe it onto the moment of the Big Bang.
     Onto BBT we have the tuple (UDS1, UDS2 ... UDSn, T[]); UDSi - undefined set of undefined variables; T[] - non-existence of time. If we assign to Singularity = (UDS1, UDS2 ... UDSn, T[]) we will have to find all the functions and transformations that could convert (UDS1, UDS2 ... UDSn, T[]) → (KM, KE, DM, DE, STR). You will have to use here all the knowledge of physics and QMs to specify the transformations, otherwise the formal model will hang up into the air, without any physical and plausible interpretation. The math is in the '→'.

1 Reply

@Herald,

If you don't have the math then why did you claim to have it? Lying doesn't seem to work well for you. It only shows you are talking out of your ass.

Defining variables does nothing if you don't use them in an equation. It only shows you have nothing so you simply throw stuff out hoping no one will notice you are talking out of your ass.

Let's do another meaningless math equation that makes more sense than yours.
HK is all the knowledge Herald has.
HK = 0

3 Replies

@parados,

Herald's blind copy-pasta is as transparent as his stochastically stochastic repetition of the stochastic word that he stochastically thinks makes him sound like he actually and stochastically understands what he copies.

0 Replies

FBM please stop your nonsens now, it is getting boring and repetitious!

We get it now. You are an ardent and fundamental believer in the church of science.

We know now. ok? so let it be and start praying to your dumb high priests.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Stochastically speaking, Quehoniaomath will not be able to ignore me much longer.

Of course, like evolution Quehoniaomath isn't truly random in his responses. He is affected by his environment just like evolution is.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

If you don't have the math then why did you claim to have it?

Which math you are talking about - the math of the theory of General Relativity, the math that infers the Singularity on the basis of the red shift and the CMB or what? This math is not mine.

parados wrote:

Lying doesn't seem to work well for you.

Where is that - can you quote?

parados wrote:

It only shows you are talking out of your ass.

... just like you. What are you overexposing that math formulas so much - you don't have any plausible interpretation of Infinity in the real world. You cannot say for sure what it means: whether it means that this element is irrelevant to the issue; or that the issue cannot be solved in that way; or that the constraints of the model eliminate the inference, or what? ... that it is undefined as an element and as a variable. Can you give an example of material element/structure from the physical world that is undefined as a variable (has no characteristics and no values)?

parados wrote:

Defining variables does nothing if you don't use them in an equation.

... and defining equation is nothing if you cannot make a plausible interpretation of it as a physical process. BTW you can never make an equation that represents the process of creation - to have Nothing, coming out of Nowhere, having values 'ten trillion trillion times greater than ...' of undefined characteristics on the one side of the equation and to have mass, energy, dark (undefined) matter, dark (undefined) energy, structures and dark structures on the other side. You don't need any more math here - it is enough to see that there is too much Information in the model, which must have been even more onto the moment of launching of the Big Bang 'theory', and that there is no way for the Big Bang and its Apologetics to take out of wherever all that Information.
Why don't you show your equations, with your plausible interpretations ... and verification and validation for possibility of the processes they are modelling and representing to exist in the physical world.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know