I should spend time learning the basics? Oh, like how pressure exceeds the force of gravity in a big bang but not in a black hole? No thanks. Why would I waste my time learning something that scientists just made up and violates one of their most basic laws?
Because you would actually understand what those laws say and realize that what they 'made up' doesn't violate them. But, instead, you choose to remain in ignorance. That is on you and only you.
Why do I believe that genius' get their information from God rather than simply working hard? Because it's impossible to come up with a new original idea on your own. You can't do it. No being can. Even Jesus can't because that would be creating and only God can create. All you can do is recycle and mix things/ideas that already exist. Try it, come up with something original. I can't wait to see it.
Garbage. People come up with original ideas all the time.
To be able to show where a prevailing theory is wrong and be able to substantiate it is a sure way to scientific success? So all the people who did not agree with Higgs went on to scientific success even though they were wrong the whole time?
Can you understand basic English? That is NOT what I said. Those who thought Higg's was wrong were NOT able to substantiate their views. But, for example, the proposal for Dark Matter was decidedly against the mainstream view when it was proposed. But the *evidence* was enough to substantiate it. So the proposer (Zwicky) is a successful scientist. Einstein's ideas were not the mainstream when he proposed them. But his ideas were testable and passed the tests. That is the substantiation required in science. Even Higg's was not the mainstream at the time he proposed his ideas. It was only later that they *became* mainstream because they were substantiated by the evidence.
So, yes, the way to get success in science is to *show* how the mainstream ideas are wrong and to give a *better* description.
Because you would actually understand what those laws say and realize that what they 'made up' doesn't violate them. But, instead, you choose to remain in ignorance. That is on you and only you.
Garbage. People come up with original ideas all the time.
Can you understand basic English? That is NOT what I said. Those who thought Higg's was wrong were NOT able to substantiate their views. But, for example, the proposal for Dark Matter was decidedly against the mainstream view when it was proposed. But the *evidence* was enough to substantiate it. So the proposer (Zwicky) is a successful scientist. Einstein's ideas were not the mainstream when he proposed them. But his ideas were testable and passed the tests. That is the substantiation required in science. Even Higg's was not the mainstream at the time he proposed his ideas. It was only later that they *became* mainstream because they were substantiated by the evidence.
So, yes, the way to get success in science is to *show* how the mainstream ideas are wrong and to give a *better* description.
If I studied the pressure of the big bang I would actually understand why it over came the effect of gravity? No one would understand it because it's not possible.
People come up with original ideas all the time? I'm still waiting for your really great original idea. You couldn't think of any, could you? Hehe... You're not as smart as you thought you were and you don't know how the universe really works.
Can I understand basic English? Because that's the way you talk, in basics, right?
Those who thought Higgs was wrong were not able to substantiate it? Of course they weren't. The point is that you shouldn't be against something that you have no idea whether it's true or not, especially when it is true. You don't know if God or the angels exist or not.
The evidence that the universe formed in a big bang is simply that galaxies are moving away from each other. You thus assumed that they must have all come from one central place, but that is incorrect. Also, if everything had formed from one big bang then all the matter in the universe would be found in an expanding sphere but, once again, that's not what we see. All the matter is pretty well evenly displaced in the universe in every direction.
You guys are so full of it and the reason you are so completely wrong about the age of the universe and the big bang and the way life is really created is because you are only really good at math and very lacking in imagination or vision.
I know that the god of the Christian Bible doesn't exist.
The revelation you have, allegedly authored by the deity described therein, describes that deity in mutually exclusive terms, This renders it logically impossible like the oft-mentioned married bachelor. Assuming that we mean the usual meanings of married and bachelor, we know that no such person exists without even getting up to look.
Likewise with the god of the Christian Bible. We can know that it doesn't exist because it cannot.
Here's a list of some of those logical contradictions:
[1] An omniscient being that grants free will to others
[2] An omniscient being with free will itself - one that both knows what he will do, yet is able to make decisions ad hoc and change the future at will
[3] A perfect being needing to be worshiped
[4] A perfect being that changes its mind
[5] A perfect being that makes mistakes or contradicts itself
[6] A perfect being that creates or alters - things either weren't perfect then or aren't now.
[7] A non-spacial being being omnipresent
[8] An onmibenevolent being that permits evil and allows suffering
[9] A perfectly just being that punishes innocents such as descendants and bystanders.
[10] A merciful being that damns without hope of forgiveness from hell.
[11] Anything existing, persisting, thinking or acting outside of time. Those verbs, like all verbs, imply an interval of time with a before, a now, and an after
[12] An omnipresent being from whom we can be separated.
[13] An omniscient being that tests people
[14] An omnipotent being that wants anything
[15] An omnibenevolent being that exhibits wrath and tortures souls
[16] An omnibenevolent being that unleashes a master demon on earth
[17] An omniscient, omnipotent being that wants to be universally known (and loved) but whose existence is still in dispute by most of the world.
[18] An omniscient and omnipotent being that can both know everything that will happen and still change its mind and make things otherwise.
[19] An omnipotent being incapable of being in the presence of sin or doing evil.
[20] An omniscient, omnipotent god that loves and protects us, yet there is so much unnecessary suffering
[21] An omniscient and omnipotent god. If it knows what is coming next, it is powerless to change that.
You guys are so full of it and the reason you are so completely wrong about the age of the universe and the big bang and the way life is really created is because you are only really good at math and very lacking in imagination or vision.
If I studied the pressure of the big bang I would actually understand why it over came the effect of gravity? No one would understand it because it's not possible.
Yes, if you actually studied GR, you would understand why the universe is expanding. If you study one of the proposed quantum theories of gravity, you would understand why there could have been a bounce. But you refuse to do that because you've made up your mind it is already wrong.
The point is that you should not advocate something as true when you have no idea whether it's true or not, especially if it's false.
I know that the god of the Christian Bible doesn't exist.
The revelation you have, allegedly authored by the deity described therein, describes that deity in mutually exclusive terms, This renders it logically impossible like the oft-mentioned married bachelor. Assuming that we mean the usual meanings of married and bachelor, we know that no such person exists without even getting up to look.
Likewise with the god of the Christian Bible. We can know that it doesn't exist because it cannot.
Here's a list of some of those logical contradictions:
[1] An omniscient being that grants free will to others
[2] An omniscient being with free will itself - one that both knows what he will do, yet is able to make decisions ad hoc and change the future at will
[3] A perfect being needing to be worshiped
[4] A perfect being that changes its mind
[5] A perfect being that makes mistakes or contradicts itself
[6] A perfect being that creates or alters - things either weren't perfect then or aren't now.
[7] A non-spacial being being omnipresent
[8] An onmibenevolent being that permits evil and allows suffering
[9] A perfectly just being that punishes innocents such as descendants and bystanders.
[10] A merciful being that damns without hope of forgiveness from hell.
[11] Anything existing, persisting, thinking or acting outside of time. Those verbs, like all verbs, imply an interval of time with a before, a now, and an after
[12] An omnipresent being from whom we can be separated.
[13] An omniscient being that tests people
[14] An omnipotent being that wants anything
[15] An omnibenevolent being that exhibits wrath and tortures souls
[16] An omnibenevolent being that unleashes a master demon on earth
[17] An omniscient, omnipotent being that wants to be universally known (and loved) but whose existence is still in dispute by most of the world.
[18] An omniscient and omnipotent being that can both know everything that will happen and still change its mind and make things otherwise.
[19] An omnipotent being incapable of being in the presence of sin or doing evil.
[20] An omniscient, omnipotent god that loves and protects us, yet there is so much unnecessary suffering
[21] An omniscient and omnipotent god. If it knows what is coming next, it is powerless to change that.
If your imagination or vision contradict the math, your imagination and vision are wrong.
Oh, you mean like the big bang that couldn't have happened because gravity would never allow it to happen? Or do you mean like this ridiculous Conservation of Energy theory that says that energy cannot be created. How the heck would humans know one way or the other? What tests prove that energy cannot be created?
You know that the God of the Christian bible does not exist? Oh, a primitive human on the earth knows whether a universal concept is real or not? You don't know because you're not supposed to know.
I described God in mutually exclusive terms which is logically impossible? No, I did not. You just did not understand.
Omniscient being that grants free will to others? How does free will deny God's all knowing ability?
An omniscient being with free will? How does all knowing deny God's own free will?
A perfect being needing to be worshipped? God does not "need" to be worshipped. Primitive humans worshipped all kinds of crazy things, even animals, so they were taught to worship the creator because that's much better than worshipping a wolf.
God changes His mind? Nope, it's never happened.
God, a perfect being, that creates others or alters them? God is perfect. You are not. Who told you that perfect beings have to create only perfection?
God, a non-spatial being being omnipresent? Omnipresence just means that God connects with every being and animal. If there is no observer in the wild of Antarctica then God is not present there.
God is omnibenevolent? This comes from the bible idea that God is love. God's central focus, in heaven, is love. God's children, you, are not love. You are an animal. A selfish, angry, little, primitive animal.
God, an omnipresent being, from who we can be separated? Who told you that God can't form beings and then connect with those beings?
God tests people? Nope. Who told you that?
God, an omnipotent being that wants something? Omnipotence means that God has ultimate power. It doesn't mean that ultimate power won't ever be used for a goal.
God, an omnipotent being that exhibits wrath and tortures souls? Nope. Primitive humans misunderstood. When Jesus talked about hell He was issuing a warning to Lucifer, not humans.
God, an omnibenevolent being that unleashes a master demon on the earth? First thing, God is not omnibenevolent. It's not about you getting what you want. It never was and it never will be about you or any other human. Second, the devil is against Jesus, not God, and tried to secede the earth from Jesus control. And third, the devil never was a demon and certainly was never a master demon. He is an angel who disagreed with Jesus.
God, an omniscient and omnipotent being wants to be universally known? God does not want to be universally known. He remains hidden because if He revealed Himself to everyone that would violate your free will to choose to not believe in Him.
God's existence is in dispute by most of the world? Not even close. About 90% of humanity believes in God.
God, an omniscient and omnipotent being that can both know everything that will happen and change His mind? God does not change His mind. It's never happened and never will happen.
God, an omnipotent being is incapable of being in the presence of sin or doing evil? This is an advanced being debate. Something you are not informed enough to even begin to discuss. God, in heaven, is incapable of doing evil because advanced beings define evil as knowing the divine plan and choosing to go against it. God is the divine plan so anything He does cannot be evil. God, who allows the soul to connect with the mind of primitive beings like humans, allows the soul to experience evil as it is defined by humans. Humans cannot choose to go against the divine plan because they don't know it.
God is an omniscient and omnipotent God that loves and protects us? No. God does not love humans. God loves His children, the soul, but you are not the soul, yet, and you may never be the soul. God does not protect you because He does not have to. There is no real harm that can come to you. If you die on the earth you will awake in the next level and be unharmed.
God, omniscient and omnipotent, knows what is coming next but powerless to change it? Not powerless, God will not interfere. Do you have children? Think of a parent who has children knowing that the children will one day likely fall down and hurt themselves, but the parent still has the children.
If my imagination contradicts the math, my imagination is wrong? What math proves the big bang? What math proves that energy cannot be created? I'll be waiting for you to come up with it.
You don't understand the universe because you don't allow yourself to undersand. You're trying to invent ideas that only prevent you from learning the truth. You're not inventing any real "logical" theories or concepts that keep God from existing.
Other than question 19, you're concepts of the universe exhibit the typical human inability to think beyond yourselves, they are very self centered and primitive.
Oh, you mean like the big bang that couldn't have happened because gravity would never allow it to happen? Or do you mean like this ridiculous Conservation of Energy theory that says that energy cannot be created. How the heck would humans know one way or the other? What tests prove that energy cannot be created?
You know that the God of the Christian bible does not exist? Oh, a primitive human on the earth knows whether a universal concept is real or not. You don't know because you're not supposed to know.
I described God in mutually exclusive terms which is logically impossible?
Omniscient being that grants free will to others? How does free will deny God's all knowing ability?
An omniscient being with free will? How does all knowing deny God's own free will?
A perfect being needing to be worshipped? God does not "need" to be worshipped. Primitive humans worshipped all kinds of crazy things, even animals, so they were taught to worship the creator because that's much better than worshipping a wolf.
God changes His mind? Nope, it's never happened.
God, a perfect being, that creates others or alters them? God is perfect. You are not. Who told you that perfect beings have to create only perfection?
God, a non-spatial being being omnipresent? Omnipresence just means that God connects with every being and animal. If there is no observer in the wild of Antarctica then God is not present there.
God is omnibenevolent? This comes from the bible idea that God is love. God's central focus, in heaven, is love. God's children, you, are not love. You are an animal. A selfish, angry, little, primitive animal.
God, an omnipresent being, from who we can be separated? Who told you that God can't for beings and then connect with those beings?
God tests people? Nope. Who told you that?
God, an omnipotent being that wants something? Omnipotence means that God has ultimate power. It doesn't mean that ultimate power won't ever be used for a goal.
God, an omnipotent being that exhibits wrath and tortures souls? Nope. Primitive humans misunderstood. When Jesus talked about hell He was issuing a warning to Lucifer, not humans.
God, an omnibenevolent being that unleashes a master demon on the earth? First thing, God is not omnibenevolent. It's not about you getting what you want. It never was and it never will be about you or any other human. Second, the devil is against Jesus, not God, and tried to secede the earth from Jesus control. And third, the devil never was a demon and certainly was never a master demon. He is an angel who disagreed with Jesus.
God, an omniscient and omnipotent being wants to be universally known? God does not want to be universally known. He remains hidden because if He revealed Himself to everyone that would violate your free will to choose to not believe in Him.
God's existence is in dispute by most of the world? Not even close. About 90% of humanity believes in God.
God, an omniscient and omnipotent being that can both know everything that will happen and change His mind? God does not change His mind. It's never happened and never will happen.
God, an omnipotent being is incapable of being in the presence of sin or doing evil? This is an advanced being debate. Something you are not informed enough to even begin to discuss. God, in heaven, is incapable of doing evil because advanced beings define evil as knowing the divine plan and choosing to go against it. God is the divine plan so anything He does cannot be evil. God, who allows the soul to connect with the mind of primitive beings like humans, allows the soul to experience evil as it is defined by humans. Humans cannot choose to go against the divine plan because they don't know it.
God is an omniscient and omnipotent God that loves and protects us? No. God does not love humans. God loves His children, the soul, but you are not the soul, yet, and you may never be the soul. God does not protect you because He does not have to. There is no real harm that can come to you. If you die on the earth you will awake in the next level and be unharmed.
God, omniscient and omnipotent, knows what is coming next but powerless to change it? Not powerless, God will not interfere. Do you have children? Think of a parent who has children knowing that the children will one day likely fall down and hurt themselves, but the parent still has the children.
If my imagination contradicts the math, my imagination is wrong? What math proves the big bang? What math proves that energy cannot be created? I'll be waiting for you to come up with it.
You don't understand the universe because you don't allow yourself to undersand. You're trying to invent ideas that only prevent you from learning the truth. You're not inventing any real "logical" theories or concepts that keep God from existing.
Other than question 19, you're concepts of the universe exhibit the typical human inability to think beyond yourselves, they are very self centered and primitive.
Yes, if you actually studied GR, you would understand why the universe is expanding. If you study one of the proposed quantum theories of gravity, you would understand why there could have been a bounce. But you refuse to do that because you've made up your mind it is already wrong.
If I studied GR then I would understand why the universe is expanding? So General Relativity explained that the universe should be expanding? Then how come scientists were surprised by it and actually used to wonder whether it was open or closed? You're trying to lie.
If I study one of the proposed quantum theories of gravity I would understand why there could have been a bounce? Why would I do that? You're the one who doesn't know how the universe came into existence, not I. I can't do the math that you can do but you don't know what your math is saying. And you come up with theories that violate your own fundamental laws and you come up with ridiculous stuff like the Conservation of Energy that no test could possibly prove. You're sinking your shoes into concrete.
I'm the one who is wrong? Then how come you guys haven't figured it all out yet? Gravity. The dimensions. How many particles there really are. What's the hold up?
Right. How do you talk advanced universal concepts with beings who make laws and then violate those fundamental laws just because they think background radiation over rides the law of gravity?
Oh, and I'm still waiting on that original idea? Can I expect it anytime soon?
If I studied GR then I would understand why the universe is expanding? So General Relativity explained that the universe should be expanding? Then how come scientists were surprised by it and actually used to wonder whether it was open or closed? You're trying to lie.
GR was published in 1916. Hubble discovered the expansion in 1923. GR was still fairly new at the time. Whether the universe is open or closed is a very different question. Both are allowed in GR, depending on the density of mass and energy.
If I study one of the proposed quantum theories of gravity I would understand why there could have been a bounce? Why would I do that? You're the one who doesn't know how the universe came into existence, not I. I can't do the math that you can do but you don't know what your math is saying. And you come up with theories that violate your own fundamental laws and you come up with ridiculous stuff like the Conservation of Energy that no test could possibly prove. You're sinking your shoes into concrete.
Nope. You are just showing your biases and ignorance.
I'm the one who is wrong? Then how come you guys haven't figured it all out yet? Gravity. The dimensions. How many particles there really are. What's the hold up?
Nope. The lack of technology to get more evidence is the hold up. You want to remain ignorant, and that is your right. But it is clear you don't want to have a reasoned debate. Until you do, there is nothing more to say.
Right. How do you talk advanced universal concepts with beings who make laws and then violate those fundamental laws just because they think background radiation over rides the law of gravity?
Oh, and I'm still waiting on that original idea? Can I expect it anytime soon?
GR was published in 1916. Hubble discovered the expansion in 1923. GR was still fairly new at the time. Whether the universe is open or closed is a very different question. Both are allowed in GR, depending on the density of mass and energy.
Nope. You are just showing your biases and ignorance.
Nope. The lack of technology to get more evidence is the hold up. You want to remain ignorant, and that is your right. But it is clear you don't want to have a reasoned debate. Until you do, there is nothing more to say.
GR was published in '16 and Hubble discovered the expansion in '23? Exactly, so GR did not explain that the universe would be expanding. You're trying to make conclusions from something that does not say definitively one or the other.
Both the universe being open or closed are allowed in GR? Then you can't use GR as evidence for either.
I'm showing my bias and ignorance? But you chose to dismiss gravity. That's not a bias? And you chose to accept the Conservation of Energy when there is no evidence that energy can't be created. None. It's impossible to prove yet you scientists claim that your beliefs are based on testable evidence just because you can't fathom how it could be done. These rules you are inventing do not represent the real universe.
The lack of technology to get more evidence is the hold up? Technology did not give you the Conservation of Energy theory. You came up with that on your own. Technology did not give you the big bang, you did that all on your own, you just had to dismiss the effect of gravity. It must have been very easy for you all, it's not like it was an important law or anything.
There is nothing more to say? There's a whole lot more to say but you can't fill a cup that is already full of itself.
You're correct. I don't understand how immense gravity can be exceeded by pressure when we don't see black holes exploding. You guys are sooo much smarter than I am.
GR was published in '16 and Hubble discovered the expansion in '23? Exactly, so GR did not explain that the universe would be expanding. You're trying to make conclusions from something that does not say definitively one or the other.
And it isn't. YOU were the one that brought up open vs. closed for no good reason.
I'm showing my bias and ignorance? But you chose to dismiss gravity. That's not a bias? And you chose to accept the Conservation of Energy when there is no evidence that energy can't be created. None. It's impossible to prove yet you scientists claim that your beliefs are based on testable evidence just because you can't fathom how it could be done. These rules you are inventing do not represent the real universe.
You came up with that on your own. Technology did not give you the big bang, you did that all on your own, you just had to dismiss the effect of gravity. It must have been very easy for you all, it's not like it was an important law or anything.
There is nothing more to say? There's a whole lot more to say but you can't fill a cup that is already full of itself.
You're correct. I don't understand how immense gravity can be exceeded by pressure when we don't see black holes exploding. You guys are sooo much smarter than I am.
You're correct. I don't understand how immense gravity can be exceeded by pressure when we don't see black holes exploding. You guys are sooo much smarter than I am.
GR eventually did explain the expansion of the universe? Okay fine if you want to claim that, but the point was that no scientist knew that GR explained the expansion of the universe. GR didn't give you proof of the expansion of the universe, Hubble did.
I was the one that brought up open vs closed for no good reason? Are you afraid of it? Did it do something to you? Did you once make a prediction about it that was incorrect and so it's a touchy subject to you?
My bias is in claiming that GR is not what it is? Don't know, I've forgotten so much of it I can't really say. Here's what I'm claiming, the universe is much, much older than 13 billion years. The big bang never happened, nebula's formed in place and some formed galaxies. The Conservation of Energy theory is correct that matter becomes energy but we already knew that when Einstein gave us E=MC2. It is not correct when it says that energy cannot be created and there is no experiment that proves it so you scientists do believe things without testable evidence. And life did not evolve by itself from chemicals and minerals.
Technology gave you the Conservation of Energy theory? Okay, what experiment proves that energy cannot be created?
My ignorance is on display? It would have to be that way, right? Because all of you guys are so good at math.
While maintaining consistency with previous tests to the degree of accuracy of the results? That turns out not to be so easy. Especially when you also ask for it to predict testable results.
While maintaining consistency with previous tests to the degree of accuracy of the results? That turns out not to be so easy. Especially when you also ask for it to predict testable results.
GR eventually did explain the expansion of the universe? Okay fine if you want to claim that, but the point was that no scientist knew that GR explained the expansion of the universe. GR didn't give you proof of the expansion of the universe, Hubble did.
Yes, that is how scientific theories work: they are not proven true until observations support them. So, when GR was proposed, it explained the motion of the planet Mercury and was consistent with Special Relativity, but didn't have much else to justify it. Then the deflection of light past the sun was observed and agreed with the predictions. Then the expansion of the universe (actually, the red shifts) was observed and agreed with GR. Then other predictions (time dilation due to gravity) were observed, so the theory gained status.
I was the one that brought up open vs closed for no good reason? Are you afraid of it? Did it do something to you? Did you once make a prediction about it that was incorrect and so it's a touchy subject to you?
Huh? Not at all. GR allows for both open and closed universes *depending on the density of energy*.
My bias is in claiming that GR is not what it is? Don't know, I've forgotten so much of it I can't really say. Here's what I'm claiming, the universe is much, much older than 13 billion years.
The Conservation of Energy theory is correct that matter becomes energy but we already knew that when Einstein gave us E=MC2. It is not correct when it says that energy cannot be created and there is no experiment that proves it so you scientists do believe things without testable evidence.
Actually every experiment we have ever done verifies the COE. One interesting case was that of beta decay (a type of radioactivity). it *appeared* that energy was not conserved in the decays, so a new particle was postulated (the neutrino). It was verified to exist 20 years later. Energy is conserved.
And life did not evolve by itself from chemicals and minerals.
Well, I am. But then, I am a mathematician. If you would learn a bit of it, you would quickly learn where you run into errors. But it is clear you have no desire to learn.
