In the beginning...

[Thief]

Can you explain what you mean by this?

your body has one overall function

learn

and what you learn preps you for the next life

but lacking intent.....it seems an unlikely hope for you

 

[leibowde84]

your body has one overall function

learn

and what you learn preps you for the next life

but lacking intent.....it seems an unlikely hope for you

Why do you think that what we learn prepares for a next life?

 

[Thief]

Why do you think that what we learn prepares for a next life?

what?....you think we should go .....

naked AND stupid?

 

[sayak83]

Your humor does not amuse me. It only influences me not to take anything you say seriously due to your lack of respect for my religious beliefs.

If you don't respect others' religious beliefs why are you posting on a religious forum?

Since when is respect for other religions or ideologies become a pre-requisite in this forum? There are rules against insulting individuals and using curse words, not for respecting other people's beliefs. Please disrespect Hinduism as much as you want in this forum, would make the discussion and debate interesting.

 

[Polymath257]

Correction: In your equation, that first multiplication should be a subtraction. Also, it should have 1/2 of the Ricci scalar
times the metric tensor. The 1/2 is missing. It is incorrect in your link also.

Einstein tensor - Wikipedia

/E: The correct equation should read

(Ricci tensor)- (1/2)*(Ricci scalar)*(metric tensor)=(8*pi*G/c^4)*(Stress/energy tensor).

It should also be pointed out that this is the equation when the cosmological constant isn't being used. So it ignores the contribution of dark energy.

If you want to include dark energy, the equation is

(Ricci tensor) -(1/2)*(Ricci scalar)*(metric tensor) + (cosmological constant)*(metric tensor)=(8*pi*G/c^4)*(Stress Energy Tensor)

 

[Thief]

Since when is respect for other religions or ideologies become a pre-requisite in this forum? There are rules against insulting individuals and using curse words, not for respecting other people's beliefs. Please disrespect Hinduism as much as you want in this forum, would make the discussion and debate interesting.

maybe you've noticed?.........
some participants are only concerned with wordplay leverage

no point talking to them

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, there is something involved that you just simply won't believe that I can't prove. The Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit in dwells me. He reveals truth. He also reveals lies. He doesn't communicate with words like we are doing now, but He gets through loud and clear. He strengthens my faith, also.

No, I'm not crazy and no, I wasn't brainwashed as a child. Many former atheists have become Christians, or so I've heard.

And many former Christians have become atheists -- and published the fact and their reasons. What does that prove?

 

[sayak83]

maybe you've noticed?.........
some participants are only concerned with wordplay leverage

no point talking to them

I am a Hindu. Everybody gets saved in my religion, even if it takes a billion lifetimes. So I am always optimistic.

 

[Ted Evans]

In this case, the answer, that your questions are meaningless, is correct.

OK, I take that as an admission that you did not answer my questions as you claimed since you have no proof of doing so. Therefore, the question, was your assertion a mistake or, was it an intentionally false statement?

 

[Polymath257]

OK, I take that as an admission that you did not answer my questions as you claimed since you have no proof of doing so. Therefore, the question, was your assertion a mistake or, was it an intentionally false statement?

No, the answer is that your question makes no sense.

 

[Ted Evans]

No, the answer is that your question makes no sense.

Really, so why did you say,

I know I answered that last one also, but can't find the specific post.

No doubt, most people that have commented in this thread will never ask why you made the above statement back in msg 244 but only now that it has been proven that you did not answer the questions as they were asked, you claim the questions make "no sense". Did they make "no sense" when you answered them, or rather when you claim to have answered them? How, or even why would you not ask for clarification, or a rephrasing of the question if it made no sense to you? Does that not seem rather stupid to you?

My goodness, I wonder how I ever made it through microwave and digital radio and fiber optics transmissions. I asked a few thousand questions there and was not once told they made no sense. There were some even like these that you say make no sense.

Was the “Dot/singularity” there before the BB? If so, where did it come from, what did it consist of? What triggered the “explosion”?

Never mind, no need to answer the questions as I have no doubt that they make no sense whatsoever to you, no different than any other question that you cannot answer as the question was asked.

 

[Polymath257]

Really, so why did you say,

I answered the questions that did make sense. I pointed to the reasons why those that do not make sense do not make sense.

No doubt, most people that have commented in this thread will never ask why you made the above statement back in msg 244 but only now that it has been proven that you did not answer the questions as they were asked, you claim the questions make "no sense". Did they make "no sense" when you answered them, or rather when you claim to have answered them? How, or even why would you not ask for clarification, or a rephrasing of the question if it made no sense to you? Does that not seem rather stupid to you?

And I did ask you why you think that matter, energy, space, and time are not co-existent. ALL the evidence we have says that they are. So any question you ask separating them makes no sense.

My goodness, I wonder how I ever made it through microwave and digital radio and fiber optics transmissions. I asked a few thousand questions there and was not once told they made no sense. There were some even like these that you say make no sense.

You asked some specific questions about what would happen if one of four types of things did not exist, but the others did. I pointed out that you are making an assumption that such is possible. NONE of the evidence we have suggests this possibility.

Never mind, no need to answer the questions as I have no doubt that they make no sense whatsoever to you, no different than any other question that you cannot answer as the question was asked.

You are asking that we answer questions assuming aspects that we know are mutually contradictory.

You also demand that we not used informed speculation in those cases where the answers are highly likely, but not yet tested.

 

[Ted Evans]

You also demand that we not used informed speculation in those cases where the answers are highly likely, but not yet tested.

Anyone can make allegations, even dishonest ones and make numerous unsupported claims but only honest people are willing to provide evidence that supports what they claim as being true, or, admit they made a mistake.

I notice that you skipped the part where I pointed out that nuclear explosions do not convert energy into mass, but instead go the other direction.

Really, you noticed that eh? Well, I noticed that you paid no attention to what you wrote, or, you cannot comprehend what you wrote.

I am aware that folks like to deflect from questions when they have no evidence supporting their answers, apparently, they count on confusion and the one asking the question forgetting the original question. Admittedly, that works quite well most times. But I am going back to the “beginning” to prove my point.

Thanks for the comments and that makes the point of my OP, science cannot answer the question where those four components came from, “in the beginning”.

To which you responded.

I assume you have heard of nuclear weapons? They are based on this equation

So, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion? Since the OP refers to in the beginning and as far as I know, there were no nuclear weapons at that time so how did energy create matter, in the beginning?

I would ask you to read that paragraph carefully, especially the phrase, “in the beginning” also, the question, “what matter is created. Now look at your response.

Other way around, actually. Mass is converted into energy in nuclear weapons. That is why they have such a large yield.

But the conversion can, and does, go the other way also. For example, if you collide two electrons together at high energy (kinetic energy), they will often produce extra matter by conversion of the kinetic energy into mass. What is produced depends on the energy level of the collision, but it is quite possible to produce protons and anti-protons (which are each 1800 times as massive as an electron).

“Mass is converted into energy in nuclear weapons”

Did I ask anything about what created energy, or was the question about how was matter created?

Did you not also say,

“But the conversion can, and does, go the other way also.”

Are you suggesting that matter can create energy and energy can create matter, with your assertion?

Now, can you quote, specifically, your answer to the question, “So, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion” just as it was asked and, in the context which it was asked, can you do that?

So, are you being deliberately dishonest or simply didn't actually read what I wrote?

There is the history, all quoted and in context so, when you say, “I *have* answered your questions” are you “being deliberately dishonest” or, were you mistaken? In your mind, is “answering” a question and “responding” to a question one and the same?

BTW, before I get, “I answered your questions, you just do not like my answer”. That is correct, I do not. I tried that tactic on an instructor once when gave he gave me a failing grade on a quiz and I asked him why he did that. His response was, “you did not answer the questions” to which I replied, “I answered the questions, you just did not like the answers” and his response was, “you are correct, I do not like the answers….and you still fail the quiz”. Moral of the story, if the answers cannot be verified as being correct, then the question is not answered, only an opinion has been given.

 

[Polymath257]

Anyone can make allegations, even dishonest ones and make numerous unsupported claims but only honest people are willing to provide evidence that supports what they claim as being true, or, admit they made a mistake.

Really, you noticed that eh? Well, I noticed that you paid no attention to what you wrote, or, you cannot comprehend what you wrote.

I am aware that folks like to deflect from questions when they have no evidence supporting their answers, apparently, they count on confusion and the one asking the question forgetting the original question. Admittedly, that works quite well most times. But I am going back to the “beginning” to prove my point.

To which you responded.

No, that was NOT the response to the previous.

I would ask you to read that paragraph carefully, especially the phrase, “in the beginning” also, the question, “what matter is created. Now look at your response.

The response about nuclear energy was to a question you had about the equivalence of matter and energy.

“Mass is converted into energy in nuclear weapons”

Did I ask anything about what created energy, or was the question about how was matter created?

You questioned whether the two were interconvertable.

Did you not also say,

“But the conversion can, and does, go the other way also.”

Are you suggesting that matter can create energy and energy can create matter, with your assertion?

Again, yes. I answered this previously. But that conversion doesn't happen in nuclear explosions. The 'beginning' wasn't a nuclear explosion.

Now, can you quote, specifically, your answer to the question, “So, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion” just as it was asked and, in the context which it was asked, can you do that?

The question shows that you did not understand my point. To help you out, you had asked if matter and energy could be converted into each other. I pointed out that matter is converted into energy in nuclear explosions. I also pointed out that the reverse can happen in other reactions. Then you asked what matter is created in nuclear explosions!

There is the history, all quoted and in context so, when you say, “I *have* answered your questions” are you “being deliberately dishonest” or, were you mistaken? In your mind, is “answering” a question and “responding” to a question one and the same?

BTW, before I get, “I answered your questions, you just do not like my answer”. That is correct, I do not. I tried that tactic on an instructor once when gave he gave me a failing grade on a quiz and I asked him why he did that. His response was, “you did not answer the questions” to which I replied, “I answered the questions, you just did not like the answers” and his response was, “you are correct, I do not like the answers….and you still fail the quiz”. Moral of the story, if the answers cannot be verified as being correct, then the question is not answered, only an opinion has been given.

You are repeating yourself. In the quiz, the instructor made up a question that made sense and had an answer that was expected based on the material covered in class. That is not the case here. YOU made up a question that is nonsense and then expect a sensible answer. I pointed out *why* your question is nonsense and you did not like that.

Now, can we move on?

Your questions ask about situations that have never been tested and are likely to be impossible. But you want empirically backed answers, when you know, by now, that such empirical answers are impossible at this time.

The only question you asked that is meaningful is the age of the expansion and the answer is about 13.8 billion years. And yes, that is backed by empirical evidence.

 

[Darkstorn]

If you don't respect others' religious beliefs why are you posting on a religious forum?

I make the claim that i have given your religious beliefs the same amount of respect and effort as you have given to those who DON'T share your viewpoint. Your tone to your opponents in an argument is plainly put, shameful.

I'm paying in kind.

In case it's not obvious from that, it's not your views i'm attacking. It's your methods and actions. Your behaviour. Those are the things i'm attacking here.

 

[DavidFirth]

And many former Christians have become atheists -- and published the fact and their reasons. What does that prove?

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

 

[DavidFirth]

Since when is respect for other religions or ideologies become a pre-requisite in this forum? There are rules against insulting individuals and using curse words, not for respecting other people's beliefs. Please disrespect Hinduism as much as you want in this forum, would make the discussion and debate interesting.

Thanks, but Christ told us to love our enemies.

 

[DavidFirth]

What "heroic leaps" are you referring to specifically?

Where did the big bang come from? What caused it? For starters.

 

[Polymath257]

Where did the big bang come from? What caused it? For starters.

We do not know if that question even makes sense. if time started at the BB, then the BB had no cause.

If time existed prior to the BB, then it did, but as yet we don't know which of several theories of quantum gravity apply, so we do not know past that.

 

[DavidFirth]

I make the claim that i have given your religious beliefs the same amount of respect and effort as you have given to those who DON'T share your viewpoint. Your tone to your opponents in an argument is plainly put, shameful.

I'm paying in kind.

In case it's not obvious from that, it's not your views i'm attacking. It's your methods and actions. Your behaviour. Those are the things i'm attacking here.