What was the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

Sure, but this is still a statistical approach, assuming no knowledge of each individual atom or molecule, as one would need in attempting to reverse a gas diffusion process, as I was hypothesising. So in your terms, this approach has already "lost" the information. What I was driving at is that the deterministic simulation may be impossible for QM reasons, because of how the distribution among states actually arises through QM processes.

But again, what about discussion with people in other departments at your institution? Or are you retired already?

Not retired, but I don't get over to that side of campus much. Probably I should.

 

[ChristineM]

I am trying to validate my claims madam, but you are not playing the ''game'', your answer of truth is validation madam.

Is both space and god ''Immortal''?

A simple question madam.

Space, in all it's forms is proved to exist, it can be observed, it can be measured. The same cannot be said of a god.

As for immortal, as far as space is concerned, eternity is one hypothesis but not the only hypothesis.

As for the view that god is immortal, prove god exists then we can get into specifics

 

[james blunt]

All you need to do is provide evidence of a gods existence. In about a known 10000+ years of deity worship by literally billions of people, no such evidence has ever been provided.

Well I have proved God and found God. Only logic was ever going to find and prove God.

Science and Religion united in one swift ''move''.

Very simple logic :

1) God has no equal

2) Finding an equal to God is finding God because God has no equal

Proof (A = B) = A or B

 

[ChristineM]

Well I have proved God and found God. Only logic was ever going to find and prove God.

Science and Religion united in one swift ''move''.

Very simple logic :

1) God has no equal

2) Finding an equal to God is finding God because God has no equal

Proof

Back to square one, your opinion is not proof, not evidence.

 

[james blunt]

Back to square one, your opinion is not proof, not evidence.

That's not opinion, I have demonstrated it. Quite clearly you are not capable of comprehending God or accepting God.

Space the creator = God the creator

A = B

I have give the maths proof.

added- Try this equation, it is Gods miracle.

0 * 0^∞ p=

/t = 1

 

[ChristineM]

That's not opinion, I have demonstrated it. Quite clearly you are not capable of comprehending God or accepting God.

Space the creator = God the creator

A = B

I have give the maths proof.

You have a very low threshold of proof.

In have already disproven your a=b claim, it seems you are incapable of understanding factual proof even when it sinks your battleship.

if there were any proof of god or gods i would review that evidence. As i have previously stated, billions of people over thousands of year's have failed to provide evidence of god or gods making the existence of god or gods the most disproven concept in human history.

You are of course welcome to your opinion and faith.

 

[james blunt]

You have a very low threshold of proof.

In have already disproven your a=b claim, it seems you are incapable of understanding factual proof even when it sinks your battleship.

if there were any proof of god or gods i would review that evidence. As i have previously stated, billions of people over thousands of year's have failed to provide evidence of god or gods making the existence of god or gods the most disproven concept in human history.

You are of course welcome to your opinion and faith.

God is a word used for the creator, space is the creator, proof.

Your struggle to see things correctly , your own doing , not mine. You have cognitive denial.

 

[ChristineM]

God is a word used for the creator, space is the creator, proof.

Your struggle to see things correctly , your own doing , not mine. You have cognitive denial.

Nope, not proof, for one, space is not a creator, its the atoms in that space that create, can't you comprehend that?

And of course, the old argument, what god?

Oh i see things correctly, i simply do not delusion myself that i have god on mental speed dial.

 

[james blunt]

its the atoms in that space that create,

Oh I comprehend, so what creates the atoms if not a creator ?

 

[exchemist]

Not retired, but I don't get over to that side of campus much. Probably I should.

Well if you ever do, I'd be intrigued in what they say about Loschmidt's Paradox.

Good discussion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We could use radioactive decay as a measure of time. In this case, the subatomic particles tunnel out of the nucleus with no movement. They are in the nucleus at one moment and outside the nucleus at the next moment. This is an inherently quantum event.

Is there a working radioactive clock? Even if so, it seems to me that radioactivity involves change, the mass changes and that would probably be what is measured as a proxy for the 'time'.

 

[exchemist]

Is there a working radioactive clock? Even if so, it seems to me that radioactivity involves change, the mass changes and that would probably be what is measured as a proxy for the 'time'.

Yes the time taken for a given proportion of the radioisotope to decay could be used as a yardstick of time. A bit like a marked candle burning down I suppose.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh I comprehend, so what creates the atoms if not a creator ?

They form from sub atomic particles.

 

[james blunt]

They form from sub atomic particles.

And the sub atomic particles form from ?

Keep going backwards until you get nothing, then go back to the future and tell me how from nothing you get something?

Gods miracle for sure. An impossibility , ZpP , zero point pressure.

 

[ChristineM]

And the sub atomic particles form from ?

Keep going backwards until you get nothing, then go back to the future and tell me how from nothing you get something?

Gods miracle for sure. An impossibility , ZpP , zero point pressure.

You speak of the god of the gaps.

I know of 28 hypothesis of how this universe was created. All mathematically feasible and some born out by observation. They all have one thing in common, no god is required.

Here is the one you requested

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

So your task is to produce a workable hypothesis that requires a god magicing the universe from nothing that can be shown using whatever recognised branch of maths to have validity.

Also been through the zpp scenario, as stated the universe is not at zero point therefore its an irrelevant idea

 

[james blunt]

Also been through the zpp scenario, as stated the universe is not at zero point therefore its an irrelevant idea

Again, you lack understanding, any given point of an infinite space is under an infinite amount of zpp. Any given point is a singularity.

I know it is hard to accept , but that is the absolute answer and a miracle from nothingness.

The opposite reaction to doing nothing is doing something.

p.s I could write a theory on it easy enough if I wanted to.

 

[ChristineM]

Again, you lack understanding, any given point of an infinite space is under an infinite amount of zpp. Any given point is a singularity.

I know it is hard to accept , but that is the absolute answer and a miracle from nothingness.

The opposite reaction to doing nothing is doing something.

p.s I could write a theory on it easy enough if I wanted to.

I explained why you were talking nonsense on zpp 2 days ago.

Go for it, write and publish your theory, lets see how long it takes for you to become famous with the speed dial numbers of great scientists and religious leaders in your cell phone contact list.

No miracle involved, just vacuum bubbles, but i see you didn't read the paper you asked for

 

[james blunt]

I explained why you were talking nonsense on zpp 2 days ago.

Go for it, write and publish your theory, lets see how long it takes for you to become famous with the speed dial numbers of great scientists and religious leaders in your cell phone contact list.

No miracle involved, just vacuum bubbles, but i see you didn't read the paper you asked for

For one, a vacuum is man made, a vacuum is not space. A vacuum has air outside. Secondly I do not care about famous, I care science and religion gets its right .

Vacuum bubbles, hilarious.

 

[ChristineM]

For one, a vacuum is man made, a vacuum is not space. A vacuum has air outside. Secondly I do not care about famous, I care science and religion gets its right .

Vacuum bubbles, hilarious.

As i said, you didn't read the paper. Vacuum bubbles naturally form all the time in the quantum realm. Your understanding of QM is not required and you are free to laugh at vacuum bubbles just as i am free to laugh at your unexplained god magic.

 

[`mud]

And there's always a container...isn't there ?