|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which More 3LoT Compatible, Cavediver's Temp.Non-ID Or Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bump.
Message 135, Buzsaw, if you please. Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
Well, yes, that is a good summary of the situation. I must say that though I support neither Genesis idea of origin nor the current consensus BB singularity model, when comparing the two I cannot help admitting that the biblical version of creation myth is much more logically consistent and is therefore vastly superior to the quackademic pseudo-scientific nonsense the majority of the educated humanity is embracing at present as their gospel truth.
That is, even if Genesis is a naive myth, the Big Bang theory is the same fond belief long drawn, cubed and squared again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
That is hard to tell what kind of training the quackademic cosmologists had, and whether they had any and then forgotten it or just disregarded it for practical considerations. In any case they keep on spouting mountains of sheer nonsense happily repeated by millions of people.
Now we have a statement from the leading cosmological luminary that runs as follows: "Because there is such a law as gravity the universe can and will create itself out of nothing" That piece of gibberish clearly shows that whatever the Lucatian fellow had his training in, it was not good thinking let alone the laws of thermodynamics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Now we have a statement from the leading cosmological luminary that runs as follows: "Because there is such a law as gravity the universe can and will create itself out of nothing" Reference?
That piece of gibberish clearly shows that whatever the Lucatian fellow had his training in, it was not good thinking let alone the laws of thermodynamics. Since you mention thermodynamics, perhaps you could show us some actual math rather than windy vacuous rhetoric. Or perhaps you can't, and the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics knows more about this than you do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, yes, that is a good summary of the situation. I must say that though I support neither Genesis idea of origin nor the current consensus BB singularity model, when comparing the two I cannot help admitting that the biblical version of creation myth is much more logically consistent and is therefore vastly superior to the quackademic pseudo-scientific nonsense the majority of the educated humanity is embracing at present as their gospel truth. Could you try to back this up with some facts --- instead of reciting this sort of worthless drivel over and over again as though mere repetition added up to an argument?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
The fact is that I can easily point to a self-evident absence of the alleged singularity whereas all you can do is to point to the authority of those who allege its possible existence in a concrete physical form in the dim and distant moment of the purported absolute origin of time and existence. Another fact is that I can rub your learned nose in that absence any time I want whereas all can do is feebly protest and call that fact my drivel.
Also, even if I repeat myself here, my repetitiveness is nothing in comparison, for the allegations similar to yours are being repeated in millions of papers, on TV and the net, year in and year out with no possible backing whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes: Why would cosmologists who are studying a thermodynamic event come up with a theory for it that is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Did they forget their basic training? Did they simply not bother to look at the thermodynamic properties of a thermodynamic event? They, by all means didn't want to be held accountable to a higher intelligence and power, subjecting themselves to the high principles that the creator held for them. So they concocted up a theory (I say theory) having no empirical model for and not physically visible. Allegedly, billions of years ago the entire Universe, including all of it's mass and energy was hotly compressed into a submicroscopic chaotic speck, having no space in which to exist, no outside of in which to expand, no before time in which to have happened, for no explicable reason, suddenly expanded and metamorphed, over some 13.5 or so billion years into all of the forces, order, complexity, intelligence, mass, and wonderment which we observe today.
Rrhain writes: In short, why do you think current cosmological models are in any way out of "compatibility" with the laws of thermodynamics? The models were created by people trained in thermo. They are necessarily designed to be in accordance with thermo. In fact, many of the models were rejected precisely because there was a problem. Why do you think inflation was presented? Model? What model even remotely depicts their Universe paradigm?
Rrhain writes: Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics? Not at all, Rrhain. It has been completely ingrained into their young minds all of the way from pre-school through doctorate by their mentors.
Rrhain writes: Did they simply not bother to look into the thermodynamic properties of the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed? Yes or no. Witnessed? By whom? Certainly not Jehovah, the Biblical exclusive god having forever been the designer/manager of his infinite wonderful complex Universe, creating, destroying, recreating and managing things in it to please his purpose.
Rrhain writes: .....then what is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them? Your message here, calling for whys and where-fors from me, has nothing in it to show a basis for their/your claims. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Cavediver writes: With regard to 2LoT, that can be most aptly stated as dS>0 - the change in entropy is always positive. Investigating this in the context of Big Bang comsology shows that this is indeed satisfied by the BBT. saved for revision later-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The fact is that I can easily point to a self-evident absence of the alleged singularity whereas all you can do is to point to the authority of those who allege its possible existence in a concrete physical form in the dim and distant moment of the purported absolute origin of time and existence. Another fact is that I can rub your learned nose in that absence any time I want whereas all can do is feebly protest and call that fact my drivel. Also, even if I repeat myself here, my repetitiveness is nothing in comparison, for the allegations similar to yours are being repeated in millions of papers, on TV and the net, year in and year out with no possible backing whatsoever. If you'd just said "no", that would have required much less effort on your part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
That was no great effort on my part, Mr. Inadequate, still, thanks for all your care to make my efforts spare.
Here's a little something to reward the kindness of your inadequate heart: http://cosmology.net/BigBang.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Forum rules require you to supply your own inaccuracy and dishonesty instead of merely linking to that supplied by others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
I've supplied plenty of my own reasoning in over a hundred of posts hardly containing any links which any one could read. Calling a challenge to your beliefs dishonesty and inaccuracy does not impress me any. The overview is quite accurate in my opinion and is what the author believes to be the truth. What is dishonest about any of that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I've supplied plenty of my own reasoning in over a hundred of posts ... What you have supplied may have occupied over a hundred posts, and may be your own, but not even the most charitable could call it reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? You're honestly and without equivocation saying that the reason cosmologists developed their theory is because they were big, bad atheists who were lying to themselves out of some twisted sense of spite toward god?
quote: You pretend like that's a bad thing. You do understand that a theory in science is a good thing, yes? It's the epitome of all your hard work and efforts. It's the thing that explains all the facts.
quote: Um, without getting into your description, how does this answer my question? Why would cosmologists who are studying a thermodynamic event come up with a theory for it that is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Did they forget their basic training? Did they simply not bother to look at the thermodynamic properties of a thermodynamic event?
[quote]Model? What model even remotely depicts their Universe paradigm?[/qutoe] The current model of cosmology. But you didn't answer my question. In short, why do you think current cosmological models are in any way out of "compatibility" with the laws of thermodynamics? The models were created by people trained in thermo. They are necessarily designed to be in accordance with thermo. In fact, many of the models were rejected precisely because there was a problem. Why do you think inflation was presented?
quote: But that doesn't answer my question: Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics? Remember, you are claiming that current models of cosmology are out of sync with thermodynamics. I am asking you why you think this to be the case. Given that the current model is an example of thermodynamics, why do you think it would be incompatible with thermodynamics?
quote: By anybody who goes out at night and looks up. If you use a telescope, you can see it better.
quote: What does this have to do with my question? Did they simply not bother to look into the thermodynamic properties of the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed? Yes or no.
quote: That doesn't answer my question: What is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them? You're the one saying they're incompatible. Therefore, you must show where.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes:
Buzsaw writes: Allegedly, billions of years ago the entire Universe, including all of it's mass and energy was hotly compressed into a submicroscopic chaotic speck, having no space in which to exist, no outside of in which to expand, no before time in which to have happened, for no explicable reason, suddenly expanded and meta-morphed, over some 13.5 or so billion years into all of the forces, order, complexity, intelligence, mass, and wonderment which we observe today. What is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them? What is a model for all of the above that would satisfy the three basic LoTs? Cite one and show your source. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024