Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[Phil]

Damn boy, how the hell do you remember to breath? Are you really so stupid you think no better understanding has been understood since 1983? That is back when I was an undergrad, lots has changed in my life (mosly older, fatter and uglier) and lots of thing in science are much better understood now. For example, the dreck you cite as scientific truth claims the universe (as was understood in 1983) was 16.5 billion years ago. That value is reduced but derived from the Hubble constant (which itself gives a 20 billion year value). Data (from WIMP) now conclusively shows that the 16.5 billion year value is in error by almost 3 billion years. The currently accepted value (accepted since 2003 although you think 1983 is gospel truth) is 13.72 Billion years. Please pay attention to the EXTRA significant digit. This is what real science tells us not what some goatherder book says.

---

Modern cosmology is well acquainted with time having a finite beginning. The Hartle–Hawking initial state proposes a finite beginning prior to the planck epoch.

You really should read what I wrote more carefully. Where exactly in my quote above did I say time or space didn't have a beginning?

A list of books is not an appeal to authority? Are you actually an adult?

It's an appeal to an authority when you don't address the argument but rather say "if only BL read these books then he would understand why his arguments are wrong"

And I stand by that statement - STATEMENT not argument you fucking ignorant piece of shit

Meaning what "banged"? Best as can be said is that the big bang arose out of quantum fluctuations. As I said before (which you apparently didn't read) - NOTHING IS UNSTABLE.

If you think that last statement is wrong. Show why?

Nothing isn't anything, it is no thing. It has no properties. Nothing does not exist.

Correct, nothing does not exist as I keep telling you. You failed to show how you disagree with the statement nothing is unstable. Please do so or this conversation is over.

What caused the quantum fluctuations? What caused the thing that caused that? Are you claiming an infinite regress of causes? Where does the buck stop?

Huh? Make sense boy? Are you claiming that quantum fluctuations don't happen? For a second let's pretend that your skydaddy caused the big bang and then stepped away. Without going into the science of it, there is a wall we can't see beyond at approximately 300,000 years after the big bang (after the big dinner and a movie). The reason is that at the temperature and pressure of the early universe no photons could escape the growing plasma. Everything you see was born out of that plasma after it cooled down (yes, you can still see this as the CMBR). Fact is NO STRUCTURE would be present if there were no quantum fluctuations that caused the initial density differences in the plasma. That was the readers digest version for easy digestion by christoholics. Also because it is probably going to be ignored so why should I bother explaining in any length?

Now do yourself a favor, learn some science before you make yourself look even stupider than you already do.

[genkaus]

Actually, it also means the beginning of time:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

Stephan Hawking has said the same. So, you're left with those choices I mentioned before, unless you have a different theory?

---

Better educate yourself.

According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the young Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, this original state existed approximately 13.7 billion years ago,[2][3] which is considered the age of the Universe and the time the Big Bang occurred.[4][5] After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles.

There wasn't "nothing" before. There was the singularity from which the universe originated. It is not creation ex-nihilo.

Further:

Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history. The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the Universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.[72]

The beginning specifically refers to passage of time as it is currently understood.

[brotherlylove]

Correct, nothing does not exist as I keep telling you. You failed to show how you disagree with the statement nothing is unstable. Please do so or this conversation is over.

un·sta·ble (n-stbl)
adj. un·sta·bler, un·sta·blest
1.
a. Tending strongly to change: unstable weather.
b. Not constant; fluctuating: unstable vital signs.
2.
a. Fickle.
b. Lacking control of one's emotions; marked by unpredictable behavior.
3. Not firmly placed; unsteady: an unstable ladder.
4. Chemistry
a. Decomposing readily.
b. Highly or violently reactive.
5. Physics
a. Decaying with relatively short lifetime. Used of subatomic particles.
b. Radioactive.

Nothing cannot change, fluctuate, be fickle, unsteady, decompose, be reactive, have any physical properties, decay, or be radioactive. Nothing has no properties at all, therefore it cannot be unstable.

Huh? Make sense boy? Are you claiming that quantum fluctuations don't happen? For a second let's pretend that your skydaddy caused the big bang and then stepped away. Without going into the science of it, there is a wall we can't see beyond at approximately 300,000 years after the big bang (after the big dinner and a movie). The reason is that at the temperature and pressure of the early universe no photons could escape the growing plasma. Everything you see was born out of that plasma after it cooled down (yes, you can still see this as the CMBR). Fact is NO STRUCTURE would be present if there were no quantum fluctuations that caused the initial density differences in the plasma. That was the readers digest version for easy digestion by christoholics. Also because it is probably going to be ignored so why should I bother explaining in any length?

I think I was being perfectly clear when I asked what caused the quantum fluctuations you are talking about. Does it make sense to you that in the beginning, there were quantum fluctuations? Why, what, where and how? Do you think that because virtual particles can appear in empty space this means something can come from nothing? Empty space is not nothing. We are still exploring the original scenerio..

The Universe had a beginning, so either

something came from nothing (you seemed to rule that out by saying there is no such thing)
an infinite regress of causes (you have listed quantum fluctuations as the first link in the chain but have failed to explain what the mechanism is, or what came before it, if anything)
an eternal first cause

This is just simple logic..pick one and back it up or submit a fourth option that has a cohesive explanation.

btw, there is no evidence for cosmic inflation; it is merely a fudge factor to explain the horizon problem

---

Actually, it also means the beginning of time:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

Stephan Hawking has said the same. So, you're left with those choices I mentioned before, unless you have a different theory?

---

Better educate yourself.

According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the young Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, this original state existed approximately 13.7 billion years ago,[2][3] which is considered the age of the Universe and the time the Big Bang occurred.[4][5] After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles.

There wasn't "nothing" before. There was the singularity from which the universe originated. It is not creation ex-nihilo.

Further:

Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history. The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the Universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.[72]

The beginning specifically refers to passage of time as it is currently understood.

I think you should tell me what you specifically believe happened before we get into this further.

[Phil]

Correct, nothing does not exist as I keep telling you. You failed to show how you disagree with the statement nothing is unstable. Please do so or this conversation is over.

un·sta·ble (n-stbl)
adj. un·sta·bler, un·sta·blest
1.
a. Tending strongly to change: unstable weather.
b. Not constant; fluctuating: unstable vital signs.
2.
a. Fickle.
b. Lacking control of one's emotions; marked by unpredictable behavior.
3. Not firmly placed; unsteady: an unstable ladder.
4. Chemistry
a. Decomposing readily.
b. Highly or violently reactive.
5. Physics
a. Decaying with relatively short lifetime. Used of subatomic particles.
b. Radioactive.

Nothing cannot change, fluctuate, be fickle, unsteady, decompose, be reactive, have any physical properties, decay, or be radioactive. Nothing has no properties at all, therefore it cannot be unstable.

So now your claiming there is a possible nothing?! First off, recall how I told you to consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? That tells us that no two conjugate properties can be measured exactly. Your nothing has no matter which means you can measure it's density to an exact degree. The conjugate variable of density is pressure. Now when you claim there is no density, you can make no claim as to pressure (other than it is non-zero). Scientifically speaking there is no such thing as nothing and that is because nothing is unstable. You must have rode a short yellow bus if you actually think a dictionary definition is going to disprove anything in science. Another reason that has been proposed to show how nothing is unstable is that it considers the conjugate variables of empty space to be the energy density and the rate of change of the energy density. If the rate of change is zero (meaning nothing according to your definition) then the energy density must be non-zero. If the energy density is zero, the rate of change must be non-zero and there you have quantum fluctuations.

Any other education you need? Send a tuition check my way.

[brotherlylove]

So now your claiming there is a possible nothing?! First off, recall how I told you to consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? That tells us that no two conjugate properties can be measured exactly. Your nothing has no matter which means you can measure it's density to an exact degree. The conjugate variable of density is pressure. Now when you claim there is no density, you can make no claim as to pressure (other than it is non-zero). Scientifically speaking there is no such thing as nothing and that is because nothing is unstable. You must have rode a short yellow bus if you actually think a dictionary definition is going to disprove anything in science. Another reason that has been proposed to show how nothing is unstable is that it considers the conjugate variables of empty space to be the energy density and the rate of change of the energy density. If the rate of change is zero (meaning nothing according to your definition) then the energy density must be non-zero. If the energy density is zero, the rate of change must be non-zero and there you have quantum fluctuations.

Any other education you need? Send a tuition check my way.

I've already addressed this in my last reply. Empty space isn't nothing and virtual particles appearing in empty space don't prove your theory. By definition, something which is unstable has properities, and anything which has properities isn't nothing. So what you call nothing is actually something. All of this is completely meaningless to the question, which have dodged yet again. The question being, since the Universe had a beginning

did something come from nothing?..nothing meaning, literally nothing
was there always something? (eternal first cause)
or are you saying there is an infinite regress of causes?

[KichigaiNeko]

Also because it is probably going to be ignored so why should I bother explaining in any length?

I appreciate it Phil..helps alot...for reasons I cannot say

[Phil]

So now your claiming there is a possible nothing?! First off, recall how I told you to consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? That tells us that no two conjugate properties can be measured exactly. Your nothing has no matter which means you can measure it's density to an exact degree. The conjugate variable of density is pressure. Now when you claim there is no density, you can make no claim as to pressure (other than it is non-zero). Scientifically speaking there is no such thing as nothing and that is because nothing is unstable. You must have rode a short yellow bus if you actually think a dictionary definition is going to disprove anything in science. Another reason that has been proposed to show how nothing is unstable is that it considers the conjugate variables of empty space to be the energy density and the rate of change of the energy density. If the rate of change is zero (meaning nothing according to your definition) then the energy density must be non-zero. If the energy density is zero, the rate of change must be non-zero and there you have quantum fluctuations.

Any other education you need? Send a tuition check my way.

I've already addressed this in my last reply. Empty space isn't nothing and virtual particles appearing in empty space don't prove your theory. By definition, something which is unstable has properities, and anything which has properities isn't nothing. So what you call nothing is actually something. All of this is completely meaningless to the question, which have dodged yet again. The question being, since the Universe had a beginning

did something come from nothing?..nothing meaning, literally nothing
was there always something? (eternal first cause)
or are you saying there is an infinite regress of causes?

You addressed shit and this will be my last reply to you on this since you know nothing of science and I have forgotten more than you could ever hope to know about the subject. AS I SAID MANY TIMES BEFORE TO YOU STUPID ASS, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING SINCE IT IS UNSTABLE. HOW THE FUCK IN YOUR PUNY HEAD DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS I CLAIM SOMETHING COMES FROM NOTHING.

Now fuck off, I'm done with your dumb ass in this thread.

[KichigaiNeko]

Ignore button works well here mate!

for the education...cheque's in the mail!

[Phil]

Ignore button works well here mate!

for the education...cheque's in the mail!

Big one I hope, I want a Bently.

He isn't even worth the button press, he will be banned the way he's going anyway since there isn't a christoholic on the planet that can resist proselytizing or making one or more sockpuppets.

[brotherlylove]

You addressed shit and this will be my last reply to you on this since you know nothing of science and I have forgotten more than you could ever hope to know about the subject. AS I SAID MANY TIMES BEFORE TO YOU STUPID ASS, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING SINCE IT IS UNSTABLE. HOW THE FUCK IN YOUR PUNY HEAD DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS I CLAIM SOMETHING COMES FROM NOTHING.

Now fuck off, I'm done with your dumb ass in this thread.

Phil, if you're not deliberately misunderstanding me for effect, you are doing a good job of it otherwise. I understand perfectly well what you are saying, it isn't very complicated. Your assertion is that quantum fluctuations caused the big bang because nothing is unstable, which explains exactly zilch. Your evidence that nothing is unstable is because of the heisenberg uncertainly principle which allows for virtual particles appearing in empty space. Yet, you have not defined how these fluctuations came about, or what state anything was in at the time these flucuations occurred, and neither have you shown that there is any correlation between virtual particles appearing in empty space and the quantum fluctuations. All you've done is just insist that is all happening without explaining how or why.

Again, it's a simple question. Since the Universe has a beginning, there are only three possibilities..

either something always was (eternal first cause)
the universe began out of literally nothing
or there is an infinite regress of causes

Your failure to answer this extremely simple question is perplexing.