basically they claim there was no big-bang. things have always been, and always will be. that differs from the various strains of western theology of course.
in other words, no beginning and no end. sounds kinda like "God" to me? no?
but who are those pantheistic hindus, and why is there such animosity between them and the monotheistic muslims?
and if the earth collided with another planet, would the overall cosmos skip a beat and then keep on ticking?
I was thinking most of this could be summed up as X=2 π r; where X > 0.
Originally Posted by Gus
Originally Posted by hanco
Pie times the radius squared
it amazes me that we can even be here, having this conversation. but, here we are nevertheless.
...but are we?
This is the same solopism that haunted René.
True, but it all boils down to whether one believes in the existence and power of the/an unknown, or not.
For myself, I've yet to be convinced of everything.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
There are physical scientists with significantly more education than yours who accept a young earth as strongly as you accept an old earth. We all have the same information. It our wold view that tells us how to interpret it. You start with the idea the majority is correct. So did Dr. Kindell. And yet he studied ten different fields during his education. He now lectures on science without using the Bible.
He looks at a single rock with four different ages that vary by a billion years and says, "The dating system is flawed." You look at the same information and say, "This proves the Bible is wrong."
In your case...
Originally Posted by 16penny
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
If I were going to write an algorithm for schizophrenia, I'd take 10 of Ringman's posts, formally outline and notate his arguments—then run those on a random loop substituting his claims for one another ad nauseam.
Originally Posted by 16penny
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
basically they claim there was no big-bang. things have always been, and always will be. that differs from the various strains of western theology of course.
in other words, no beginning and no end. sounds kinda like "God" to me? no?
but who are those pantheistic hindus, and why is there such animosity between them and the monotheistic muslims?
and if the earth collided with another planet, would the overall cosmos skip a beat and then keep on ticking?
Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's teacher, and Paul Steinhardt, the Einstein chair at Princeton, both independently reject the big bang in part and go for a more cyclic model.
As Penrose points out CBR, cosmic background radiation, is 0.1% uninorm in all directions and looks like 3 degrees K radiation. That is as high entropy as it gets. The big bang would have had to be perfectly low entropy. Thus the theory in trouble with not only gravity, but the second law of thermodynamics. Yet two Nobel prizes have been handed out for the big bang.
For anyone who can think, this is troubling.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
There are physical scientists with significantly more education than yours who accept a young earth as strongly as you accept an old earth.
We all have the same information. It our wold view that tells us how to interpret it. You start with the idea the majority is correct. So did Dr. Kindell. And yet he studied ten different fields during his education. He now lectures on science without using the Bible.
He looks at a single rock with four different ages that vary by a billion years and says, "The dating system is flawed." You look at the same information and say, "This proves the Bible is wrong."
No, there really aren't. That's just more of the mindless BS you spout with still no proof, hoping someone will fall for it.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
There are physical scientists with significantly more education than yours who accept a young earth as strongly as you accept an old earth.
We all have the same information. It our wold view that tells us how to interpret it. You start with the idea the majority is correct. So did Dr. Kindell. And yet he studied ten different fields during his education. He now lectures on science without using the Bible.
He looks at a single rock with four different ages that vary by a billion years and says, "The dating system is flawed." You look at the same information and say, "This proves the Bible is wrong."
No, there really aren't. That's just more of the mindless BS you spout with still no proof, hoping someone will fall for it.
Pot, meet kettle.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
basically they claim there was no big-bang. things have always been, and always will be. that differs from the various strains of western theology of course.
in other words, no beginning and no end. sounds kinda like "God" to me? no?
but who are those pantheistic hindus, and why is there such animosity between them and the monotheistic muslims?
and if the earth collided with another planet, would the overall cosmos skip a beat and then keep on ticking?
Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's teacher, and Paul Steinhardt, the Einstein chair at Princeton, both independently reject the big bang in part and go for a more cyclic model.
As Penrose points out CBR, cosmic background radiation, is 0.1% uninorm in all directions and looks like 3 degrees K radiation. That is as high entropy as it gets. The big bang would have had to be perfectly low entropy. Thus the theory in trouble with not only gravity, but the second law of thermodynamics. Yet two Nobel prizes have been handed out for the big bang.
For anyone who can think, this is troubling.
well, yes indeed. troubling it is sums it up very well. but, we're dealing in theory, and hypothesis of one kind or another. not totaly the truth, not yet anyways. the truth might not be so pleasant? i don't know.
but, what if there was no beginning, and there was no end? how could that be? well, our binary brains couldn't conceive of such a thing/reality, so it doesn't exist, right?
we western europeans with our thought process don't hardly allow no outside ideas to enter in. it keeps us safe, or at least did. but, what if the Story Line is bigger/larger than what we've come to believe/accept? humans on the earth, what a concept. lol.
basically they claim there was no big-bang. things have always been, and always will be. that differs from the various strains of western theology of course.
in other words, no beginning and no end. sounds kinda like "God" to me? no?
but who are those pantheistic hindus, and why is there such animosity between them and the monotheistic muslims?
and if the earth collided with another planet, would the overall cosmos skip a beat and then keep on ticking?
Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's teacher, and Paul Steinhardt, the Einstein chair at Princeton, both independently reject the big bang in part and go for a more cyclic model.
As Penrose points out CBR, cosmic background radiation, is 0.1% uninorm in all directions and looks like 3 degrees K radiation. That is as high entropy as it gets. The big bang would have had to be perfectly low entropy. Thus the theory in trouble with not only gravity, but the second law of thermodynamics. Yet two Nobel prizes have been handed out for the big bang.
For anyone who can think, this is troubling.
I don't know why it would be "troubling", it just means there's additional opportunities for research.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 01/24/17.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
As Penrose points out CBR, cosmic background radiation, is 0.1% uninorm in all directions and looks like 3 degrees K radiation. That is as high entropy as it gets. The big bang would have had to be perfectly low entropy. Thus the theory in trouble with not only gravity, but the second law of thermodynamics. Yet two Nobel prizes have been handed out for the big bang.
They are handing out Nobel prizes for big bang....not good.
1) CBR disproves big bang. It could not be stronger evidence against it.
2) How did big bang overcome gravity? And don't say space temporarily inflated. That is the dog ate my homework.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
They are handing out Nobel prizes for big bang....not good.
1) CBR disproves big bang. It could not be stronger evidence against it.
2) How did big bang overcome gravity? And don't say space temporarily inflated. That is the dog ate my homework.
I was told there was no space prior to the Big Bang. I asked a teacher how the Big Bang overcame gravity. "It wasn't invented yet," she informed me.
Because the Higgs Field didn't exist yet. Perhaps her words were in-artful, but they are not inconsistent with current models of the very early Universe.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's teacher, and Paul Steinhardt, the Einstein chair at Princeton, both independently reject the big bang in part and go for a more cyclic model.
As Penrose points out CBR, cosmic background radiation, is 0.1% uninorm in all directions and looks like 3 degrees K radiation. That is as high entropy as it gets. The big bang would have had to be perfectly low entropy. Thus the theory in trouble with not only gravity, but the second law of thermodynamics. Yet two Nobel prizes have been handed out for the big bang.
For anyone who can think, this is troubling.
Not really, not so much as dark energy/dark matter that we had to invent to make the equations come out right. We're missing something bigly.
On the other hand there are particles (we postulate) so small and exist for so short a time that seem to hold atomic nuclei together that they cannot be individually detected by observation under our present understanding of physical laws (uncertainty principle). On the other hand the Hubble ultra deep space photo (Wiki) reveals seemingly countless galaxies all with atoms composed of those tiny particles. A magnificent system to have come about on its own.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
![[Linked Image]](http://a64.tinypic.com/2vsgupv.jpg)
