Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[gnostic]

I don't disagree with your post, but that doesn't mean I must agree with you that BB something from nothing evidence is sufficient such that everyone must believe that something from nothing is possible or else be called out as being unscientific.

Except that you don’t understand BB, because the theory never say there is nothing.

Like every creationists that I have come across, you are repeating their mistakes, and refuse to actually do the research of the bb.

Where are you getting your sources from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your opinions are your own, but if you want to challenge science, then you’ll need evidence to do so.

While logic is good, logic is only superior when it has evidence to support it.

As I said in my last reply, logic isn’t infallible, nor they are inerrant. Logic can be wrong, and logic can be biased, because there is always a man behind logic, who can be wrong and can be biased.

Without the evidence, it is merely make-believe opinion, or worse delusional opinion if you let ego refused to let you see your error.

I preferred reality over personal logic.

Excellent point. An argument can be "logically sound" but still be totally false if a starting syllogism is wrong it leads to a GIGO situation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your opinions are your own, but if you want to challenge science, then you’ll need evidence to do so.

While logic is good, logic is only superior when it has evidence to support it.

As I said in my last reply, logic isn’t infallible, nor they are inerrant. Logic can be wrong, and logic can be biased, because there is always a man behind logic, who can be wrong and can be biased.

Without the evidence, it is merely make-believe opinion, or worse delusional opinion if you let ego refused to let you see your error.

I preferred reality over personal logic.

I am not challenging science, I am saying it as I understand it on this one item, something from nothing bb, are you the arbiter of all things scientific.?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I accept the scientific method, I read a lot about scientific published papers on many disciplines, a lot of them are weak and I do not accept it as settled. You can call me out of a science denier, but I do not accept that there was a something from nothing BB, it is a bridge too far for my intuition to buy.

First off you need to define your terms. If you are only talking "energy" then it appears that something from nothing may be possible and it supported by the science. Physicists can measure the total energy of the universe and it appears to be zero. There is both positive and negative energy and the two appear to balance out. Therefore a universe that starts from "Zero energy" could expand as ours has and have galaxies, stars, and planets without violating the conservation of energy law.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Except that you don’t understand BB, because the theory never say there is nothing.

Like every creationists that I have come across, you are repeating their mistakes, and refuse to actually do the research of the bb.

Where are you getting your sources from?

You are now trying to change the subject, if you read from the beginning, it is only been about something from nothing BB, nothing else!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are now trying to change the subject, if you read from the beginning, it is only been about something from nothing BB, nothing else!

Okay, your personal version of the Big Bang theory could be incorrect. That says nothing about the version accepted by physicists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

First off you need to define your terms. If you are only talking "energy" then it appears that something from nothing may be possible and it supported by the science. Physicists can measure the total energy of the universe and it appears to be zero. There is both positive and negative energy and the two appear to balance out. Therefore a universe that starts from "Zero energy" could expand as ours has and have galaxies, stars, and planets without violating the conservation of energy law.

Fine, let these physicists go from 0 = +1 and -1 math to making some matter and antimatter disappear into nothing, and you will have my attention, otherwise it is mere speculation.

 

[gnostic]

You are now trying to change the subject, if you read from the beginning, it is only been about something from nothing BB, nothing else!

No, I am not.

You keep saying that bb theory say that “something come from nothing”, then which BB sources say this?

Requesting a source, isn’t changing the subject. You are evading a simple and valid request; you are projecting your evasiveness.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Okay, your personal version of the Big Bang theory could be incorrect. That says nothing about the version accepted by physicists.

My discussion was with ratiocinator about something from nothing bb, I have no personal version of bb.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I am not.

You keep saying that bb theory say that “something come from nothing”, then which BB sources say this?

Requesting a source, isn’t changing the subject. You are evading a simple and valid request; you are projecting your evasiveness.

Go back to the beginning of my exchange with ratiocinator, we were discussing something from nothing bb.

 

[gnostic]

Fine, let these physicists go from 0 = +1 and -1 math to making some matter and antimatter disappear into nothing, and you will have my attention, otherwise it is mere speculation.

Are you saying that antimatters or antiparticles don’t exist?

I am asking because I don’t think you understand the physics behind annihilation, just as you are still misunderstanding bb.

Your physics is terrible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine, let these physicists go from 0 = +1 and -1 math to making some matter and antimatter disappear into nothing, and you will have my attention, otherwise it is mere speculation.

Nope, just because you do not understand the math does not make it speculation. In fact when you claim it is mere speculation you take on a burden of proof. How would you prove that it was just speculation? By the way, for an example of "Something from nothing" you should Google the Casimir effect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My discussion was with ratiocinator about something from nothing bb, I have no personal version of bb.

It appears that you do since what you describe as the Big Bang does not seem to match up with the version that physicists follow.

But then it is always easier to refute a strawman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you saying that antimatters or antiparticles don’t exist?

I am asking because I don’t think you understand the physics behind annihilation, just as you are still misunderstanding bb.

Your physics is terrible.

What did I say that indicates to you I don't think antimatter exists?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nope, just because you do not understand the math does not make it speculation. In fact when you claim it is mere speculation you take on a burden of proof. How would you prove that it was just speculation? By the way, for an example of "Something from nothing" you should Google the Casimir effect.

You've reversed it, of course the math that says 0=+1 -1 is not speculation, it is the physics in the context of bb that is impossible!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've reversed it, of course the math that says 0=+1 -1 is not speculation, it is the physics in the context of bb that is impossible!

Okay so you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It appears that you do since what you describe as the Big Bang does not seem to match up with the version that physicists follow.

But then it is always easier to refute a strawman.

We will let ratiocinator be the arbiter of whether we were discussing something from nothing bb or not, unless you are prepared to do the checking yourself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Okay so you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

I can't follow you, so let me ask you, can matter and antimatter be made to disappear into nothing, a simple yes or no will suffice?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't follow you, so let me ask you, can matter and antimatter be made to disappear into nothing, a simple yes or no will suffice?

You are going to draw an incorrect conclusion from the answer. I will still answer. They do not disappear but instead form two gamma rays that conserve both energy and momentum.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are going to draw an incorrect conclusion from the answer. I will still answer. They do not disappear but instead form two gamma rays that conserve both energy and momentum.

Precisely, so what do you think science can come up with to actually make them disappear into nothing?