Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
Larni
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 329 of 357 (641504)
11-19-2011 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by cavediver
11-19-2011 6:42 PM


Re: Plausible explanation
But still, I was quite pleased with my analogy.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by cavediver, posted 11-19-2011 6:42 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 331 of 357 (641546)
11-20-2011 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Butterflytyrant
11-19-2011 10:06 PM


Indeed sir, I would sir.
And I have way to manage this duel that will be hopefully acceptable.
1: both parties name a second (many thanks to you, good sir, for stepping into the breach, at the eleventh hour) and be accompanied by his physician.
2: the challenged party chooses weapon to be used: sword, pistol or cannon.
3: a constable or impartial referee is selected (who must be a gentleman of no small character and repute).
4: the time is selected for satisfaction by the aggrieved party.
5: the aggrieved party decides whether to seek 'first blood' or 'to the death'
This is where we diverge from the Code Duello (and many thanks to that renown brain-box Mr Ager-Cawley for making the relevant adaptions to the modern electronic Field of Honour).
6: both parties roll a dice at the prescribed time and PM the opposing second with the result. Failing to PM the opposing second with the result is considered cowardly and base behaviour and forfeits all honour. Man will shun him and God will turn His face from him.
7: one hour after the agreed time the constable or referee flips a coin. This result is PM to all parties. If heads, the highest dice roll wins. If tails, the lowest rolls win. A tie indicts both parties suffer the consequence of loosing (see below) but honour is satisfied and all animosity and grievance is forgotten.
8: if to first blood the looser must refrain from posting for one day if sword was the weapon of choice, two if pistol or three if cannon were used. These values are trebled if the duel was to the death.
9: once the looser has refrained from posting in the relevant thread for the appropriate length of time honour is considered satisfied and all animosity and grievance is forgotten.
It is my hope that Code Duello de Larni will regulate uncivil behaviour in discussion forums from now ever after.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-19-2011 10:06 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 341 of 357 (644314)
12-17-2011 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Portillo
12-16-2011 5:02 PM


I don't understand how you can read this entire thread and make such a comment.
Are you impervious to knowledge?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Portillo, posted 12-16-2011 5:02 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 347 of 357 (652496)
02-14-2012 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by hugenot
02-13-2012 10:17 PM


So an argument from Authority and one from Incredulity.
Very well done, that man.
So apart from this, do you have any actual evidence for what you say.
All the best.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by hugenot, posted 02-13-2012 10:17 PM hugenot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024