Jump to content
Islamic Forum
andalusi

Non-religious Evidence That God Exists

Recommended Posts

Hey Donald , then I guess you're here arguing with yourself eh ? Andalusi is about the only one posting on here besides Russell who' seems to be just as thick headed and arrogant as you are. You should be old enough to accept , that other people view things differently and are entitled to their opinions. As for the " di-Hydrogen monoxide ", you can try to walk that one back as much as you like , the term has been used in an urban legend by conspiracy theorists , as far back as 2005. By your use of it , you displayed the same peculiar mentality. And yes , you do need a course in reading comprehension , either that ,or you are practicing purposed ignorance .

 But hey , don't take my word for it , Google the term and you'll plainly see what types of mentalities subscribe to that whole hocus pocus story about it.

 

Don't hurt yourself bunky , you will have to use your head and THINK .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Hi Andalusi

 

OK I get that you can’t understand how randomness can create complex structures.  I can’t either by the way.  Evolution can do it but evolution is not randomness, evolution is selection applied to random variations and that’s a different thing all together.  No wonder you struggle to understand this stuff with misconceptions like that in your head.

 

So lets step away from the caricature that evolution = randomness and look at what it actually says and those experiments I posted here earlier are a really simple example of it doing just that. They combined a random set of seeds with selection followed by random variations on the best of the previous round.  After thousands of generations they produced a working program for those chips that no human understands yet it works with far fewer components than the best a human designer could come up with and that program was created by randomness and selection just as evolutionary theory explains.

 

Please go back and read through those experiments again and tell me which bits of it you are having trouble understanding and I’ll see if I can fill in the details to get you there.  I’m not asking you to believe it or anything just to try to understand it.  Can you do that?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Speed of the Big Bang Explosion:

The balances established with the Big Bang, the instantaneous formation of the universe, are one of the proofs that the universe did not come into being by chance. According to the well-known Adelaide University professor of mathematical physics Paul Davies, if the rate of expansion that took place following the Big Bang had been just one in a billion billion parts different (1/1018), the universe could not have come into being. 3

The Four Forces:

All physical motion in the universe comes about thanks to the interaction and equilibrium of the four forces recognised by modern physics: gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. These forces possess extraordinarily different values to one another.4

The Distances between Celestial Bodies:

The distribution of celestial bodies in space and the enormous spaces between them are essential to the existence of life on Earth. The distances between celestial bodies have been set out in a calculation compatible with a great many powerful universal forces in such a way as to support life on Earth.5

Gravity:

- If gravity were stronger, excessive ammonia and methane would collect in the Earth's atmosphere, which would have a most damaging effect on life.
- If it were weaker, the Earth's atmosphere would lose excessive quantities of water, making life impossible.

The Earth’s Distance from the Sun:

- If this were any greater, the planet would grow very cold, the water cycle in the atmosphere would be affected, and the planet would enter an ice-age.
- If the Earth were any closer to the Sun, plants would burn up, the water cycle in the Earth's atmosphere would be irreparably damaged, and life would become impossible.

The Thickness of the Earth’s Crust:

- If the crust were any thicker, then an excessive amount of oxygen would be transferred to it from the atmosphere.
- If it were any thinner, the resulting amount of volcanic activity would make life impossible.

The Speed at which the Earth Revolves:

- If this were any slower, the temperature difference between day and night would grow enormously.
- If it were any faster, then atmospheric winds would reach enormous speeds, and cyclones and storms would make life impossible.

The Earth’s Magnetic Field:

- If this were any more powerful, very strong electromagnetic storms would arise.
- If it were any weaker, then the Earth would lose its protection against the harmful particles given off by the Sun and known as solar winds. Both situations would make life impossible. 

The Albedo Effect (The Fraction of Light Reflected by the Earth):

- If this were any greater, an ice-age would rapidly result.
- If it were any less, the greenhouse effect would lead to excessive warming. The Earth would first be flooded with the melting of the glaciers, and would then burn up.

The Proportion of Oxygen and Nitrogen in the Atmosphere:

- If this were any greater, vital functions would be adversely accelerated.
- If it were any less, vital functions would adversely slow down.

The Proportion of Carbon Dioxide and Water in the Atmosphere:

- If this were any greater, the atmosphere would overheat.
- If it were any less, the temperature of the atmosphere would fall.

The Thickness of the Ozone Layer:

- If this were any greater, the Earth's temperature would fall enormously.
- If it were any less, the Earth would overheat and be defenceless against the harmful ultraviolet rays emitted by the Sun. 

Seismic Activity (Earthquakes):

- If this were any greater, there would be constant upheaval for living things.
- If it were any less, the nutrients at the sea bottom would fail to spread into the water. This would have a damaging effect on life in the seas and oceans and all living things on Earth.

The Earth’s Angle of Tilt:

The Earth has a 23 degree angle of inclination to its orbit. It is this inclination that gives rise to the seasons. If this angle were any greater or any less than it is now, the temperature difference between the seasons would reach extreme dimensions, with unbearably hot summers and bitterly cold winters.

The Size of the Sun:

A smaller star than the Sun would mean the Earth would freeze and a larger star would lead to its burning up.

The Attraction between the Earth and the Moon:

- If this were any greater, the powerful attraction of the Moon would have extremely serious effects on atmospheric conditions, the speed at which the Earth revolves around its own axis and on the ocean tides. 
- If it were any less, this would lead to extreme climate changes.

The Distance between the Earth and the Moon: 

- If they were just a little closer, the Moon would crash into the Earth.
- If they were any further, the Moon would become lost in space.
- If they were even a little closer, the Moon's effect on the Earth's tides would reach dangerous dimensions. Ocean waves would inundate low-lying areas. The friction emerging as a result of this would raise the temperature of the oceans and the sensitive temperature balance essential to life on 
Earth would disappear.
- If they were even a little further away, the tides would decrease, leading the oceans to be less mobile. Immobile water would endanger life in the seas, and the level of the oxygen we breathe would be endangered.6

The Temperature of the Earth and Carbon-Based Life:

The existence of carbon, the basis of all life, depends on the temperature remaining within specific limits. Carbon is an essential substance for organic molecules such as amino-acid, nucleic acid and protein: These constitute the basis of life. For that reason, life can only be carbon-based. Given this, the existing temperature needs to be no lower than -20 degrees and no higher than 1200 Celsius (2480 F). These are just the temperature limits on Earth.

These are just a few of the exceedingly sensitive balances which are essential for life on Earth to have emerged and to survive. Yet even these are sufficient to definitively reveal that the Earth and the universe could not have come into being as the result of a number of consecutive coincidences. The concepts of "fine-tuning" and the "anthropic principle" that began to be employed in the 20th century are further evidence of Allah's creation. The harmony and proportion therein were described with magnificent accuracy fourteen centuries ago in the Qur'an. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Does that mean you can't read through the experiment I posted earlier and attempt to understand it?  Even if I help you with the tricky bits?  You seem to have ignored that suggestion and just changed topics rather than deal with the issue at hand.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no Point to discuss this since you cant explain to me , you even said you dont understand it eighter so, there is no point to go further on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Please read what I said, I was specific about what I didn’t understand.  I don’t understand how randomness alone, the religious caricature of evolution, can produce anything.  You said you can’t understand that and I said I can’t either.  That’s a simple statement of facts.  I do understand in great detail how evolution, which is random variation and non-random selection working together, can do it.  That’s a different thing entirely not in the slightest related to the religious caricature you and I can’t fathom producing anything.

 

So here it is in simple terms, I can and do understand in great detail how evolution can produce the many living forms we see around us and I can and will take you through the steps to understanding it if you are up to the challenge.  To that end I have supplied the kindergarten example of evolution in action in those experiments that I pointed out to you above.  You said you couldn’t understand them and fair enough even the kindergarten version takes some effort to get your head around but it’s worth it as a stepping stone.  You have no chance of understanding the quantum maths of those transport organelles you keep harping on about if you can’t grasp the ‘kindergarten maths’ of those simple experiments.  Start at the simple end and see if you can get your head around the low level stuff then we’ll step up to those organelles bit by bit.

 

So are you up to the challenge Andalusi?   To get things started tell me what it was that you couldn’t grasp about those experiments and I’ll explain it in more detail.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Speed of the Big Bang Explosion:

 

The balances established with the Big Bang, the instantaneous formation of the universe, are one of the proofs that the universe did not come into being by chance. According to the well-known Adelaide University professor of mathematical physics Paul Davies, if the rate of expansion that took place following the Big Bang had been just one in a billion billion parts different (1/1018), the universe could not have come into being. 3

 

The Four Forces:

 

All physical motion in the universe comes about thanks to the interaction and equilibrium of the four forces recognised by modern physics: gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. These forces possess extraordinarily different values to one another.4

 

The Distances between Celestial Bodies:

 

The distribution of celestial bodies in space and the enormous spaces between them are essential to the existence of life on Earth. The distances between celestial bodies have been set out in a calculation compatible with a great many powerful universal forces in such a way as to support life on Earth.5

 

Gravity:

 

- If gravity were stronger, excessive ammonia and methane would collect in the Earth's atmosphere, which would have a most damaging effect on life.

- If it were weaker, the Earth's atmosphere would lose excessive quantities of water, making life impossible.

 

The Earth’s Distance from the Sun:

 

- If this were any greater, the planet would grow very cold, the water cycle in the atmosphere would be affected, and the planet would enter an ice-age.

- If the Earth were any closer to the Sun, plants would burn up, the water cycle in the Earth's atmosphere would be irreparably damaged, and life would become impossible.

 

The Thickness of the Earth’s Crust:

 

- If the crust were any thicker, then an excessive amount of oxygen would be transferred to it from the atmosphere.

- If it were any thinner, the resulting amount of volcanic activity would make life impossible.

 

The Speed at which the Earth Revolves:

 

- If this were any slower, the temperature difference between day and night would grow enormously.

- If it were any faster, then atmospheric winds would reach enormous speeds, and cyclones and storms would make life impossible.

 

The Earth’s Magnetic Field:

 

- If this were any more powerful, very strong electromagnetic storms would arise.

- If it were any weaker, then the Earth would lose its protection against the harmful particles given off by the Sun and known as solar winds. Both situations would make life impossible. 

 

The Albedo Effect (The Fraction of Light Reflected by the Earth):

 

- If this were any greater, an ice-age would rapidly result.

- If it were any less, the greenhouse effect would lead to excessive warming. The Earth would first be flooded with the melting of the glaciers, and would then burn up.

 

The Proportion of Oxygen and Nitrogen in the Atmosphere:

 

- If this were any greater, vital functions would be adversely accelerated.

- If it were any less, vital functions would adversely slow down.

 

The Proportion of Carbon Dioxide and Water in the Atmosphere:

 

- If this were any greater, the atmosphere would overheat.

- If it were any less, the temperature of the atmosphere would fall.

 

The Thickness of the Ozone Layer:

 

- If this were any greater, the Earth's temperature would fall enormously.

- If it were any less, the Earth would overheat and be defenceless against the harmful ultraviolet rays emitted by the Sun. 

 

Seismic Activity (Earthquakes):

 

- If this were any greater, there would be constant upheaval for living things.

- If it were any less, the nutrients at the sea bottom would fail to spread into the water. This would have a damaging effect on life in the seas and oceans and all living things on Earth.

 

The Earth’s Angle of Tilt:

 

The Earth has a 23 degree angle of inclination to its orbit. It is this inclination that gives rise to the seasons. If this angle were any greater or any less than it is now, the temperature difference between the seasons would reach extreme dimensions, with unbearably hot summers and bitterly cold winters.

 

The Size of the Sun:

 

A smaller star than the Sun would mean the Earth would freeze and a larger star would lead to its burning up.

 

The Attraction between the Earth and the Moon:

 

- If this were any greater, the powerful attraction of the Moon would have extremely serious effects on atmospheric conditions, the speed at which the Earth revolves around its own axis and on the ocean tides. 

- If it were any less, this would lead to extreme climate changes.

 

The Distance between the Earth and the Moon: 

 

- If they were just a little closer, the Moon would crash into the Earth.

- If they were any further, the Moon would become lost in space.

- If they were even a little closer, the Moon's effect on the Earth's tides would reach dangerous dimensions. Ocean waves would inundate low-lying areas. The friction emerging as a result of this would raise the temperature of the oceans and the sensitive temperature balance essential to life on 

Earth would disappear.

- If they were even a little further away, the tides would decrease, leading the oceans to be less mobile. Immobile water would endanger life in the seas, and the level of the oxygen we breathe would be endangered.6

 

The Temperature of the Earth and Carbon-Based Life:

 

The existence of carbon, the basis of all life, depends on the temperature remaining within specific limits. Carbon is an essential substance for organic molecules such as amino-acid, nucleic acid and protein: These constitute the basis of life. For that reason, life can only be carbon-based. Given this, the existing temperature needs to be no lower than -20 degrees and no higher than 1200 Celsius (2480 F). These are just the temperature limits on Earth.

 

These are just a few of the exceedingly sensitive balances which are essential for life on Earth to have emerged and to survive. Yet even these are sufficient to definitively reveal that the Earth and the universe could not have come into being as the result of a number of consecutive coincidences. The concepts of "fine-tuning" and the "anthropic principle" that began to be employed in the 20th century are further evidence of Allah's creation. The harmony and proportion therein were described with magnificent accuracy fourteen centuries ago in the Qur'an. 

 

 

Atheist response

 

Coincidence, coincidence   coincidence  coincidence  coincidence  lol

 

 

they will never believe 

 

 

Also the world was created in stages so each stage of creation is a coincidence according to them.

 

Its like  if i had 20 dice and threw it all at once n got all 6's ok maybe a coincidence. However if  i took them 20 dice and rolled 1 at a time and got all 6's for all 20 tht is not a coincidence. So universe was created in stages so each stage cant be a coincidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Muslim4life7

 

Actually the atheist response to that huge list of claims is far more interesting, we don’t say “coincidence, coincidence coincidence coincidence coincidence” rather we say “I don’t know but lets try to find out”.  That’s an interesting position; it’s the position that drives science.  Questions are what science is all about not blind belief in untestable ideas like you are peddling here.

 

Now some possible answers to the questions repasted by Andalusi are, the multiverse, maybe there are many randomly varied universes with different laws and at least one has the laws we see around us.  We can’t prove that at this stage but it may be true.  Another plausible answer is that the factors shown to be closely correlated are actually interconnected so their values can’t vary independently.  In some cases this has been proven but in many it has not so that is an open question and open questions are what drives science so that too is a very interesting observation.

 

Finally we have to come to the biggest flaw in many of those claims, the author refers to this or that being a problem for life without pointing out that he really means life LIKE US.  What other forms of life are possible?  Many forms of life love methane and would thrive in an environment filled with it for example, we wouldn’t but life would.  There is no reason to assume that an intelligent species would not arise in a methane environment and look out and say how lucky they were to live in an environment so perfectly suited to them.  In other words they may well make the exact mistake that this author is making by ignoring what evolution does and that is it fits organisms to the environment they find themselves in.

 

Finally you talk about rolling dice, and your example clearly shows that maths is not your strong suit, sure rolling all the dice at once and getting a specific result, any specific result, is very unlikely but no more or less unlikely than rolling the dice one at a time and getting that same results. In fact the order and spacing of rolling the dice has absolutely no effect on the outcome apart from how long you have to wait for it.  That’s entry level probably theory taught in most high schools Muslim4life7.  Did you miss those classes for some reason?  Here’s a quick experiment for you, roll six dice and write down the numbers you get in order, now see how many times you have to roll those dice again before you get the same set of numbers.  Look for that 6-6-6-6-6-6 you mentioned at the same time.  There’s a 50/50 chance you’ll get 6-6-6-6-6-6 before you get your specific combination.  No combination of numbers is any more or less likely than any other so you’ll be rolling for a very long time.

 

I’d give you the same advice I’ve given Andalsui in different words, education will solve these misunderstandings of maths and science that you keep presenting here as if it proved something and I’m happy to help with that if you are up for the challenge.  Are you?  Can you handle learning a little maths Muslim4life7?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im saying something can happen in all 1 coincidence however if tht coincidence has many stages 1 after another then no 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Muslim4life7

 

Yes I understood that and I was pointing out that you were wrong.  As I said that's basic probability theory taught in most high school math's classes and demonstrated in science labs.  The probabilities don't change just because the steps are run in series rather than in parallel.  It might sound like it's more difficult or improbable but the maths shows us otherwise and the experiments support that finding.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Donald , then I guess you're here arguing with yourself eh ? Andalusi is about the only one posting on here besides Russell who' seems to be just as thick headed and arrogant as you are. You should be old enough to accept , that other people view things differently and are entitled to their opinions. As for the " di-Hydrogen monoxide ", you can try to walk that one back as much as you like , the term has been used in an urban legend by conspiracy theorists , as far back as 2005. By your use of it , you displayed the same peculiar mentality. And yes , you do need a course in reading comprehension , either that ,or you are practicing purposed ignorance .

 But hey , don't take my word for it , Google the term and you'll plainly see what types of mentalities subscribe to that whole hocus pocus story about it.

 

Don't hurt yourself bunky , you will have to use your head and THINK .  

 

Sorry for the delay, Eclipse. The family and I had a beautiful time in Egypt, bloody marvellous it was.

 

Of course. You are more than welcome to keep your opinions, after all, they are of no use to me.

I'd just like to know how they work, how you have managed to adopt and maintain them and what are your reasons for continuing to keep them.

For the most part (as you know) I am a determinist, and the reasons for your position (in my opinion) are innumerable, though typical and essentially boring.

 

This whole 'dihydrogen monoxide thing' for example, has gotten out of hand to the extent that you still can't provide a chemical name for water that you're willing to promulgate.

Either you're not reading, not comprehending, or refuse to concede when you know that you're mistaken.

 

 

There is no Point to discuss this since you cant explain to me , you even said you dont understand it eighter so, there is no point to go further on this.

 

Nobody I know can simplify these problems enough for me to understand them, therefore, Islam is true.

 

                                                                                                                                                                   - Andalusi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda doubt your story Donald . Not to worry though , you've already proved the nature of your mentality , by your gullibility of hair-brained conspiracy theories . You've already diminished yourself Donald as far as any credibility goes . Yes, you can  hold onto to whatever it is that you subscribe to , that's your right , just as it is my right to toss it to the curb .

 

 

P.S. - Donald if only for the sake of educating yourself , -lest you make a bigger fool of yourself - and for your own benefit , simply look up di-hydrogen monoxide . But whatever you do,  DON'T Drink it .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love my Di-Hydrogen Monoxide, drink it every day.  If you don’t your already dead or maybe you’re that Turing machine trying to prove you’re not a computer here.

 

In chemical terms

 

Di=2

Hydrogen =H

Mon = 1

Oxide = bound oxygen = O

 

2H-1O

 

Or more conventionally drop the 1 as it’s assumed

 

2H-O

 

Now place the number of atoms following their designation as per conventional notation

 

H2-O

 

Or just

 

H2O

 

Dihydrogen-Monoxide (Ohh scary!!!!) = H2O = water.  Do you get the joke yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the "don't drink it " went over your head , eh Donald ?

 

p.s. Donald , I think you have lost track of WHO brought up the subject  originally and WHY.

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooops Russell that is.  Oh well, you two are interchangeable anyway by now .[ if not one and the same ] :yes:

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

I take it you don’t remember when you said this:-

 

Dihydrogen Monoxide is not water , never was never will be . It's part of an urban legend over 20 years old and you got sucked into it .  “ – Eclipse (Post #1287902 to The Meaning Of Life in Refuting non-Muslims - 23 October 2015 - 01:12 PM)

 

Of course Dihydrogen Monoxide is in fact water and you’re statement is simply wrong here though I get the feeling you haven’t worked that out even yet.  Yes I know you’re very very clever but you are still wrong.  The hoax you are referring to, which you’ve still fallen for hook line and sinker apparently, is in the fact that the unfamiliar chemical description used sounds scary and that was used to trick people into signing petitions against plain old water.  The entire hoax fails if Dihydrogen Monoxide is not water that's the point of it, if that were not true what was the point of the hoax?   You’re statement above is simply wrong and that’s the statement that started this whole discussion.

 

Russell

Edited by russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell use of term was part of a hoax . I've taken basic science classes way back in elementary school and water -H2O was never referred to as di-Hydrogen monoxide ,  although it is the description of the atoms making up water ,  just as  the atomic transliteration for salt , dry ice or other commonly used chemicals . I don't remember if it was you or your alter-ego Donald who first foisted it up . And no , I did not "fall for the Hoax " , because I've heard it before ,and knew exactly what it was , you and your shadow got chumped and just didn't know it .   The only persons I've ever heard use that term is the schoolboy moron that foisted the hoax , and fellow tricksters who think themselves clever like yourself and Donald . You got played from the getgo .   Again , who brought it up and why .

 

 Go back to playing your superior ego/ intellect games with Andalusi .  Like shootin' fish in a barrel eh Russell ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the point of the Hoax ? LOL.....about the same as the discourse between you and Andalusi .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you didn't fall for the hoax and knew exactly what it was yet you said "“Dihydrogen Monoxide is not water , never was never will be" which is both false and shows a striking lack of understanding of what the hoax was about.  Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Donald , er , Russell , when it was foisted up , for me, it was only a matter of seeing if Donald was ignorant enough to believe it , or  he  was dumb enough to think I never heard of it, and couldn't or wouldn't have already Googled it.[it has been there since atleast  2006 ] It's quite clear what the hoax was about , as I told Donald it was in fact a hoax.  Donald , as you may have noticed , likes to play word games , and I played him.

 

The discussion we had regarding Planck segments , clearly showed, he either did not know what he was talking about, or feigned that  and went even further by revising what I stated. I had made it quite clear that science knows nothing regarding physical laws or the state of matter and energy before-  a few Planck segments of time after the initial  event that started the Inflation . Even drew him a picture. What I got back was pure and simple bull .

 

Yea , I played Donald with his DHMO , deadly poison it is .  Interesting ? No . Silly ? Yes , just as silly as you arguing with Andalusi .  But far less facetious .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

I’m not sure what to say to that, you tested if Donald was ignorant enough to believe it by making a false statement (dihydrogen monoxide is not water remember) about it.  Donald only made true statements about it as did it.  Yes interesting approach Eclipse, very interesting.

 

Yes I remember very well your claims etc around Planck Segments, whatever they are.  You’ve still never managed to produce a scientific publication that uses that terminology of course still lets move on.  When you made the claim that we didn’t know anything before, what was it,   “a few Plank segments of time after the initial event that started the inflation” you added confusion not enlightenment.  Of course the events that ‘started the inflation’ were a long time after the initial events of this universe so you were and are wrong here.  You gave times ranging from 10-33 of a second to 10-43 of a second for this event.  That’s ten orders of magnitude.  The equivalent of saying that the population of Las Angeles is either 1 or 10,000,000,000 then claiming that they are the same population.  Yes foolish in the extreme but typical I’d have to point out.  Do you wonder why we don’t take you seriously Eclipse?  Do you even grasp what those numbers actually mean?

 

You did at one point, long after the start of that discussion, correctly state that the limit to our knowledge was the end of the Planck Epoch but only after it was spelled out to you in detail.  Given your recent statements it doesn’t sound like you’ve learned much even now.

 

Yes you supplied a pretty picture, it was scientifically worthless but cute none the less, kindergartenesk I’d have to suggest.  When presented with the standard, scientific picture in the correct logarithmic timescale you showed no sign that you actually understood it and you’ve done nothing to change my view on that as yet.

 

In the end there is only one person in this discussion who has made false statements about the beginnings of the universe and our understanding of it and about dihydrogen monoxide and it wasn’t Donald or me.  That same person has still showed clearly that they don’t actually grasp what’s going on here.  Even Wikipedia could help there but you’d have to put in a little effort Eclipse.

 

The big question I'm left with is do you actually grasp the world in the very limited and invalid detail that you portray here.  Is that all there is to your view of this world and our understanding of it?  Lots of blather mixed with lots of inaccuracy.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell your ego is so big , that A ) you think you're too clever to be played , B ) your foolish enough to display arrogance in your pretentious views and opinions on the Origin of the Universe , when in actuality you know NOTHING beyond what the leading edge of Science knows , which in fact anyone who follows the subject knows .

My statement was not false , in fact you have been challenged more than once to bring forth what you , or what Science knows regarding this .

I stated this clearly, though you and Donald continued to play your juvenile word games ,and express your mutual cognitive dissonance regarding the issue .

If you have something other than conjecture and speculation , pay it forward .

I stated, that anything BEFORE roughly three Planck segments of time , AFTER the initial event that started Inflation remains a complete and total unknown . Science can extrapolate backwards in time , using Physics be they Quantum or Classical ,but can not look back beyond that point , nor explain why, how, or what caused it . Beyond that point there is NOTHING , other than speculation and conjecture .

Now if you can refute that statement , go right ahead , because the whole field of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology , as well as myself , would like to know . BTW provide references since I already know what your opinion is .

Please save your nonsensical and facetious rebuttals which have been getting real old by this late time in the discussion .

It is a relatively simple statement that any 5th or 6th grade science student can understand .


Oh and p.s. Russell please refrain from the B.S. you just piled up on this thread in your last statement . Try to make an intelligent rebuttal or refute . I know it's hard for you , but try .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Sounds like you are just going to go around and around on this one.  You misspoke when you stated that the limit to our knowledge was one of several points in time separated by 10 orders of magnitude.  Science gives an exact time for it not a spread so ridiculously large as you have.  Can you accept that you were wrong in making these statements?

 

If not then there’s probably not much more to say.  Recognizing when you have made a mistake is critical to improving yourself Eclipse.

 

You misspoke again when you stated that Dihydrogen Monoxide was not and never has been water.  Of course it is specifically and exactly pure water and that was the point but again you seem incapable of admitting your error here or of understanding them.

 

I think you need to sit down and think hard about the false statements you have made over and over again here and see if you can understand why people here don’t take you seriously.

 

Yes again with the “three planck segments” which is not a scientific term.  Can you see why we don’t take you seriously?

 

Yes there is a specific time, the end of the Planck epoch, beyond which we can’t gather significant information.  We know that whatever was there was something that could create a universe that looks like this but that’s about it.  That means zero total energy and the mass etc of our universe but currently no specifics.

 

You’ll have to show me where the statements I made in my last post equate in your head to B.S.  Was it when I pointed out that you couldn’t pin down the moment of the limit of our knowledge to a point but rather gave times ranging over 10 orders of magnitude, remember that’s the equivalent of stating that “LA has a population of 1 or was it 10,000,000,000 doesn’t matter because they’re the same thing” - (Eclipse paraphrased).  Was it when I pointed out that your pretty picture was in the wrong time scale to be useful and presented instead the standard scientific view of the beginning of the universe in a logarithmic timescale, was that my B.S.?  Or is that just more bluster Eclipse?  Try to get specific here Eclipse and maybe we’ll make some progress.  I know you hate specifics because they can be wrong but try anyway.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell , dispense with your B.S. and simply answer the question , or just shut up and go away  . Enough of your facetious double talk and juvenile word games .

 What do you know of the  Universe BEFORE 3 Plank Segments AFTER the start of Inflation .

 

 

Provide references , as your opinion is meaningless and your credibility even less .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

OK so it doesn’t matter to you that you can’t actually point to a moment in time when you ask that question, you don’t refer to the standard time accepted by science, the end of the Planck Epoch, but rather you persist in the meaningless “3 plank segments after the start of inflation”.  Sorry I can’t help you.

 

Inflation started sometime after the start of the universe and sometime after the end of the Planck Epoch, the commonly agreed limit to our knowledge. Any time after the start of inflation is too late as the start of inflation postdates the limit to our knowledge, that includes the time you are referring to.  If you want to know what we knew of things before that time you’ll have to define when that is but that’s been the problem all along hasn’t it.  When you attempt to state that time in standard notation you spread your guesses out over 10 orders of magnitude. You don’t seem to understand the standard scientific notations used when referring to these times so you’re question points to an undefined moment sometime after the start of inflation and therefore after the beginning of our knowledge of the universe which occurred before the start of inflation.

 

So is that the best you can do, point your finger off vaguely to some point after inflation started and say what did we know before then?  Or are you capable of expressing the question in standard scientific notation?  Nominate a specific time and ask the question and you’ll find, just as I have done throughout this discussion, that I can and will answer you specifically and accurately but I can’t really help you when you can’t even express yourself accurately and in correct scientific notation.

 

Maybe this will help, in seconds how long is a Plank Segment in standard scientific notation?  What is x if you express a Plank Segment as 10x seconds.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×