Can religion reject this science ?

[ratiocinator]

I'm finding people rather strange , as soon as I start offering proofs, they run away .

Can't be that - you haven't offered a single hint of a solitary shred of a scintilla of evidence, let alone proof. You just keep on making baseless, unsupported assertions.

It is logical that if we could make a perfect vacuum with perfect shielding , the inner of the vacuum would be just empty space !

Except quantum field theory - that's real science, that makes real, numerical, testable predictions, that have been tested and found to be accurate - says otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, we can start with this !

Physics knows of no truly empty space because after the Big bang , space became full of energy etc . Before the Big bang was no matter , i.e an empty void

Does that make sense to you ?

You can't find an infinite void because we evolved in the already created visual universe .

No, in the standard model, there simply wasn't a 'before the Big Bang'.

I'll tell you what. When your 'theory' is able to predict the exact amount of the red-shift of light when it goes down a floor of a building, we can talk. When it is able to predict the amount of the shift of the perihelion of Mercury, we can talk. But should be given along with calculations from your model.

Until you can do these, general relativity wins by default.

 

[james blunt]

No, in the standard model, there simply wasn't a 'before the Big Bang'.

Let me make something plain and clear to you all .

The big bang is a theory and it is not 100% a fact . Any top scientist will tell you this , it is our best guess .


Now I've come along and can point out flaws in the Big bang theory , impossibilities .

So why is everyone being so intentionally obtuse and not actually discussing ?


It is impossible there was no pre-existing space before any event of creation !

That is a fact , period !

Any matter needs a pre-existing space to exist in , Fact!

 

[james blunt]

Can't be that - you haven't offered a single hint of a solitary shred of a scintilla of evidence, let alone proof. You just keep on making baseless, unsupported assertions.



Except quantum field theory - that's real science, that makes real, numerical, testable predictions, that have been tested and found to be accurate - says otherwise.

I have offered loads of proofs including seven axiom postulates which nobody as proved falsity . You can't prove falsity because they are axioms .

Why not discuss instead of being on some mighty horse ?

 

[james blunt]

Start here , please discuss !

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

 

[Polymath257]

Let me make something plain and clear to you all .

The big bang is a theory and it is not 100% a fact . Any top scientist will tell you this , it is our best guess .


Now I've come along and can point out flaws in the Big bang theory , impossibilities .

So why is everyone being so intentionally obtuse and not actually discussing ?

Because your statements hsow you don't understand what the BB theory says or the experimental basis for it.

It is impossible there was no pre-existing space before any event of creation !

That is a fact , period !

Well, that is your claim. But it is contradicted by one of the most successful theories in physics. Maybe that should give you some pause? Maybe what you *think* is impossible is actually possible and you just don't understand what is being said?

Any matter needs a pre-existing space to exist in , Fact!

Not pre-existing: co-existing.

 

[Polymath257]

I have offered loads of proofs including seven axiom postulates which nobody as proved falsity . You can't prove falsity because they are axioms .

Why not discuss instead of being on some mighty horse ?

And we have pointed out that your 'axioms' are contradicted by the evidence supporting general relativity, the BB, etc.

Once again, if you can predict the amount of curvature of light going past a massive body to within an accuracy of, say, 2 decimal places, then you have something worth discussing. General relativity does that and uses the curvature of spacetime to make that prediction. The prediction it made is accurate. We also have evidence of gravitational waves, also predicted by general relativity. Those waves show the dynamic nature of space and time. So another of your 'axioms' is shown to be false.

At this point, you are making claims with no backing, based solely on your faulty understanding and intuitions. That's why nobody takes your ideas seriously.

 

[Polymath257]

Start here , please discuss !

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

What, precisely, do you mean by 'created or destroyed'? The volume of a region can change over time. That is shown by the overall expansion of space that we have measured.

 

[james blunt]

Because your statements hsow you don't understand what the BB theory says or the experimental basis for it.




Well, that is your claim. But it is contradicted by one of the most successful theories in physics. Maybe that should give you some pause? Maybe what you *think* is impossible is actually possible and you just don't understand what is being said?



Not pre-existing: co-existing.

Don't you think that after over a decade of self studies I do not know what I am talking about ?

Do you know that ''your'' idea of a discussion is to be a stuck record and keep playing the same tune over and over again not listening to the new better sounding song ?


Space cannot co-exist until there is some thing created to co-exist with !

I'm sorry and I don't want to sound rude but your logic is really poor .

Please discuss postulate 1 or else we won't get any where and like normal we will be going around in circles .

I know you are smart so could you please use your own smarts instead of preaching the stuck record ?

 

[james blunt]

What, precisely, do you mean by 'created or destroyed'? The volume of a region can change over time. That is shown by the overall expansion of space that we have measured.

Space doesn't expand , pfffff ,


What does created or destroyed normally mean ?

It isn't a difficult question .


Space always existed and will always exist , it was never created and it can never be destroyed .

God didn't create space might be more understandable for you .

 

[Polymath257]

Don't you think that after over a decade of self studies I do not know what I am talking about ?

Yes, I believe you do not know what you are talking about.

Do you know that ''your'' idea of a discussion is to be a stuck record and keep playing the same tune over and over again not listening to the new better sounding song ?

Not at all. But you asked for evidence showing your axioms are wrong and I provide such: the observed and measured expansion of the universe contradicts your first axiom.

Space cannot co-exist until there is some thing created to co-exist with !

I'm sorry and I don't want to sound rude but your logic is really poor .

Well, that is your claim. But, I would shat you don't understand what the competing views actually say. You show this in your next-to-last statement.

Please discuss postulate 1 or else we won't get any where and like normal we will be going around in circles .

I know you are smart so could you please use your own smarts instead of preaching the stuck record ?

Well, if you keep insisting that axiom 1 is correct, I will keep showing how it is false. If that is a 'stuck record', then perhaps you need to unstick it.

 

[Polymath257]

Space doesn't expand , pfffff ,

Sorry, but the evidence says otherwise.

What does created or destroyed normally mean ?

It isn't a difficult question .


Space always existed and will always exist , it was never created and it can never be destroyed .

That is your claim. But it isn't a certainty, by any means. What observational evidence do you have to support your claim?

God didn't create space might be more understandable for you .

Why bring a fictitious deity into the mix?

 

[james blunt]

Yes, I believe you do not know what you are talking about.



Not at all. But you asked for evidence showing your axioms are wrong and I provide such: the observed and measured expansion of the universe contradicts your first axiom.




Well, that is your claim. But, I would shat you don't understand what the competing views actually say. You show this in your next-to-last statement.



Well, if you keep insisting that axiom 1 is correct, I will keep showing how it is false. If that is a 'stuck record', then perhaps you need to unstick it.

Ok , we are getting somewhere, that is you speaking now and you are not so defensive .

The universe expansion is metric measurement expansion , the red shift observed is of bodies not of space . We do not observe the space itself expanding , we observe a greater visual volume of space .

Can you understand that ?

 

[james blunt]

Why bring a fictitious deity into the mix?

Hmm, God will hear you ! God is everywhere , within you even . Space is God !

Without God , matter cannot exist .

 

[Polymath257]

Ok , we are getting somewhere, that is you speaking now and you are not so defensive .

The universe expansion is metric measurement expansion , the red shift observed is of bodies not of space . We do not observe the space itself expanding , we observe a greater visual volume of space .

Can you understand that ?

What do we mean by the phrase 'space expanding'? We mean the volume is larger now than it was in the past. Simple enough. The red shift is evidence of such because the waves of light are stretched along with the space.

 

[Polymath257]

Hmm, God will hear you ! God is everywhere , within you even . Space is God !

Without God , matter cannot exist .

Your belief system. Not mine.

 

[james blunt]

What do we mean by the phrase 'space expanding'? We mean the volume is larger now than it was in the past. Simple enough. The red shift is evidence of such because the waves of light are stretched along with the space.

This is the mistake you are making , quantum fields stretch but the space doesn't . You need to forget the part in bold , that is incorrect .

 

[Polymath257]

This is the mistake you are making , quantum fields stretch but the space doesn't . You need to forget the part in bold , that is incorrect .

Such is your claim. But my viewpoint is able to make precise predictions of observable phenomena. Can yours? if not, it isn't a science at all.

 

[james blunt]

Your belief system. Not mine.

Fact ! I don't believe in fishes or loaves , I don't believe in the dead rising but I do know a real factual miracle , an impossibility and that is the manifestation of energy from nothingness .

 

[Polymath257]

Fact ! I don't believe in fishes or loaves , I don't believe in the dead rising but I do know a real factual miracle , an impossibility and that is the manifestation of energy from nothingness .

Again, showing you don't know what the actual theory says. But how can you if you don't know the math?