|
Author
|
Topic: Alpha-Omega universes in free fall
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
Message 4 of 47 (676968)
10-26-2012 5:37 AM
|
|
|
Sometimes you first have to step outside to see the bigger picture.
This is a tiny part of that bigger picture. |
What is your point?
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 53The 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
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 7 of 47 (676990)
10-26-2012 7:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by sunshaker
10-26-2012 6:06 AM
|
|
When you say you see the bigger picture how do you know what you see is not just your imagination? Do you you have any evidence this?
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 53The 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 5 by sunshaker, posted 10-26-2012 6:06 AM | | sunshaker has taken no action |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
So, you base your conclusions about reality on what you personally prefer to believe: I wish I could. There would be dragons.
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 53The 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
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
| How do you mean? You'd prefer to believe in dragons but duty calls you to be loyal to black holes? Don't worry. It's all literature anyway. Go ahead. Indulge yourself in some dragons too. |
No. Of course not. I would love the Universe to make sense in an intuitive way where every phenomena boiled down to common sense rules of cause and effect: where anything that just did not make sense to me could not be true. But I know there are things that don't conform to my personal take on how things should work. To get around this I use the scientific method to base my conclusions on. I would love to beleive that there are dragons: but there is no evidence of them so I don't. Do you understand?
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 53The 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
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 21 of 47 (677148)
10-27-2012 9:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by sunshaker
10-27-2012 6:48 AM
|
|
Re: "Edge"
You do not have a theory. You have an unsupported hypothesis.
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 53The 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 20 by sunshaker, posted 10-27-2012 6:48 AM | | sunshaker has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 24 of 47 (677224)
10-28-2012 4:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by sunshaker
10-27-2012 4:45 PM
|
|
Re: "Edge"
Then you should be able to demonstrate these higher and lower dimensions. If you can't what does that tell you?
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 53The 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 22 by sunshaker, posted 10-27-2012 4:45 PM | | sunshaker has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 27 of 47 (677241)
10-28-2012 12:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by sunshaker
10-28-2012 6:58 AM
|
|
Re: "Edge"
So you can't demonstrate what these dimensions are; you can only make unevidenced assertions. What a surprise.
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 53The 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 25 by sunshaker, posted 10-28-2012 6:58 AM | | sunshaker has taken no action |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 33 of 47 (694878)
03-30-2013 7:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by sunshaker
03-29-2013 6:15 AM
|
|
Still no evidence. What a suprise.
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 53The 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 32 by sunshaker, posted 03-29-2013 6:15 AM | | sunshaker has taken no action |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 36 of 47 (701266)
06-15-2013 3:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by Panda
06-08-2013 6:22 PM
|
|
Re: 11 DIMENSIONS
Did you buy it?
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 53The 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 35 by Panda, posted 06-08-2013 6:22 PM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by Panda, posted 06-15-2013 7:45 PM | | Larni has taken no action |
|
™ Version 4.1
