Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

Lol. I could care less what you think

So you are saying that it matters what he thinks.

How much does it matter to you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lol. I could care less what you think

But you said some things are unreasonable. That could include views held by other humans and that is an insult. You are indirectly insulting other humans. Or my view is unreasonable by your standard and then that is an insult.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol you can't ask those kinds of questions.

As usual he made a claim without sources. In the past the age of the universe was not as well known as it was once were were better able to analyze that CBR. Since then the numbers have been fairly uniform and only improving in accuracy. Before then there were estimates from 7 to 20 billion years. So he may have seen an estimate of whatever age that he posted. There probably was an article where someone calculated that. More information means better dates. Look for dates of the universe that came from this century. You will not see that variation:

Imagine the Universe!

This site is intended for students age 14 and up, and for anyone interested in learning about our universe.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov

 

[Jimmy]

If one cannot properly defend a belief then it is by definition "unreasonable".

Eh. If someone robs a bank, it’s unreasonable. We all know why

 

[Jimmy]

So you are saying that it matters what he thinks.

How much does it matter to you?

A little more hahahaha

 

[Jimmy]

But you said some things are unreasonable. That could include views held by other humans and that is an insult. You are indirectly insulting other humans. Or my view is unreasonable by your standard and then that is an insult.

Gettin weird….. hahaahaha

 

[ratiocinator]

They are not really claims. They are simply facts concerning the known nature of our universe and Quantum Mechanics at the smallest scale.

Well that's another claim that needs justifying. It's obviously not directly obervable, so in what sense is it fact?

 

[We Never Know]

But you said some things are unreasonable. That could include views held by other humans and that is an insult. You are indirectly insulting other humans. Or my view is unreasonable by your standard and then that is an insult.

So were you insulting Moon in this post?

Mine is neither but your is. You don't own the word my.

 

[ratiocinator]

There’s many things that are unreasonable and my belief isn’t one of them.

Another joke.

"I'm right because I'm right, so there!"

Very reasonable..... not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Gettin weird….. hahaahaha

Are you laughing at me? If so, that is an insult.

 

[ratiocinator]

Eh. If someone robs a bank, it’s unreasonable. We all know why

Actually is easier to argue that robbing a bank is reasonable than your baseless claims are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Eh. If someone robs a bank, it’s unreasonable. We all know why

No, a legitimate insurgence could be a reasonable case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A little more hahahaha

Do you know what your mistake was? Here is a hint, that post told others that you do not reason rationally.

 

[Jimmy]

Do you know what your mistake was? Here is a hint, that post told others that you do not reason rationally.

Ok

 

[Jimmy]

No, a legitimate insurgence could be a reasonable case.

Ok

 

[Jimmy]

Actually is easier to argue that robbing a bank is reasonable than your baseless claims are.

Ok

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok

Have you learned anything new?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you learned anything new?

Sadly I do not think so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sadly I do not think so.

No, learning that learning new knowledge that changes the status of old knowledge, is not something everybody can do. The weirdest case I ever came across was a skeptic, who didn't want to learn new knowledge, because then he felt wrong and he wasn't wrong ever.

 

[shunyadragon]

But you use math as the evidence above in one of your posts. To me that is not evidence as I have learned it. So is it math or tests? You didn't answer that.

I am NOT using math alone as evidence. You are lumping subjects .and continuing your unfortunate confusing agenda.

The post you referred to previously concerning the nature of the universe at the large scale and the Quantum Mechanics on the smallest scale concerning the nature of time, gravity and other properties is well supported by predictive math theorems, and objective verifiable evidence.

Again . . .

They are facts confirmed by the evidence concerning the nature of time and gravity in our universe on the large scale and Quantum Mechanics on the smallest scale.

Simple searches of the nature of time/space, and gravity in out universe, and the nature of time, no gravity on the smallest scale of Quantum Mechanics. Yes, there are unanswered questions, but you have offered nothing to define a coherent argument concerning this topic.