The Myth of the Big Bang

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1636 Nov 12, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a lie, assumption of the basis of your posts. Tell me do you believe in god?
Not a lie, assumption of the basis of your posts. Tell me do you believe in god?
You said and I quote “I will thanks. Not that I think that Stephen Hawking's work carries much weight. How many bets has that guy lost” Are you suggesting that “carries much weight” is not a personal perspective?
I did not say otherwise but it does make him smarter than you. May I ask you to supply trhe names of these others in the field of theoretical physics, whatsup? You don’t even know what his field of study is and yet you claim his opinion does not carry much weight?
So you have no answer then? Well done. It does make you look foolish though, rather like you NONE answer to my question of how many bets you have lost.
If you can’t answer or are unwilling to answer than that is your problem and no one else’s and if you make BS up just for spite then please don’t be astounded when people to laugh at you
You are an idiot and are hyperfocusing on the issue of my maybe having lost a bet as if it pertains to anything. That is laugh able. I am sure that your assumption of my stance on religion is based solely on Skeptic's one lined interjection. FYI: he is a re-tard.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1637 Nov 12, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>You are an idiot and are hyperfocusing on the issue of my maybe having lost a bet as if it pertains to anything. That is laugh able. I am sure that your assumption of my stance on religion is based solely on Skeptic's one lined interjection. FYI: he is a re-tard.
Nope, You made a statement on the fact that Stephen Hawking had lost bets. I asked if you had ever lost bets, the answer to which would confirm or deny the validity of your statement. Up to now, perhaps because you are a truthful person, you have been unwilling to answer and have squirmed with several back sliding copouts. Perhaps because it would put you in a bad light and discredit you original statement, who knows. However it does mean that we assume you made you statement based on spiteful ignorance rather than for any valid reason.

Add to that the fact that you have not bothered to respond to any of the questions in my post

Do you believe in god?– twice

Are you suggesting that “carries much weight” is not a personal perspective?

You still have not supplied the names of these others in the field of theoretical physics,

And still you have not responded to my original question of how many bets have you lost?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1638 Nov 12, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, You made a statement on the fact that Stephen Hawking had lost bets. I asked if you had ever lost bets, the answer to which would confirm or deny the validity of your statement. Up to now, perhaps because you are a truthful person, you have been unwilling to answer and have squirmed with several back sliding copouts. Perhaps because it would put you in a bad light and discredit you original statement, who knows. However it does mean that we assume you made you statement based on spiteful ignorance rather than for any valid reason.
Add to that the fact that you have not bothered to respond to any of the questions in my post
Do you believe in god?– twice
Are you suggesting that “carries much weight” is not a personal perspective?
You still have not supplied the names of these others in the field of theoretical physics,
And still you have not responded to my original question of how many bets have you lost?
No.
I provided links which have those names.
You original question is stupid

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1639 Nov 12, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>No.
I provided links which have those names.
You original question is stupid
If that’s what you say, fair enough

I see no links – I just looked back to the beginning of the month on this thread, way past your original claim and no links to any theoretical scientists. Therefore we must assume you are lying.

My question was simply in response to your statement. I see nothing stupid about asking if you have lost any bets when you attempt to discredit someone for loosing a bet. A simple answer would have done much to clear the hypocrisy that is associated with your posts. That you are unwilling to answer it because no doubt the answer makes you look stupid is not my problem.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1640 Nov 12, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, LeMaitre worked in 1922, not 1822.
Second, the Big Bang theory deals with the expansion of the universe from a hot, dense state. This is described using general relativity and statistical mechanics. However, the description breaks down at the very start; the curvature, density, and temperature all go to infinity. This called a singularity and shows that the theory does NOT hold 'all the way back'.
Third, we specifically know that general relativity is not a quantum mechanical theory and we also know that quantum gravity will have a role to play at the very early stages of the universal expansion. The problem is that we have no tested theory of quantum gravity (general relativity has been tested in its domain of applicability).
Fourth, there are several proposed quantum theories of gravity, but they give different answers concerning what happens before the universal expansion begins. Some say that time *begins* when the expansion begins. Those theories *do* have a 'beginning of the universe'. But most theories have the universe existing forever into the past either as a single 'universe' or as a multiverse. Since we cannot, as yet, test between the different theories, we cannot say what happened before the start of the expansion.
-----
Thank you Polymath, for pointing out to me my typing mistake about the date Lamaitre came up with the theory of the big bang. You are right; 1922 is the right date.

Another "thank you" is in line with your reminding me of the expansion of the universe. Why? Because, if you check in the dictionary, "expansion" is akin to "stretch" itself further, and the Bible, likewise, has been talking about it for thousands of years before 1922. If you read Job 28:7, "The Lord stretches out the North over empty space, and suspends the earth over nothing at all." And here, I would like to bring to your attention the testimony of two famous Jews: One is Einstein who, involved in the research about the expansion of the universe, was asked if he believed in God. His answer was that all his life was trying to catch God at His work of creation. That's expansion. The other Jew is Jesus who said that the Lord has never ceased working to this very day.(John 5:17) I take this as a reference to the expansion of the universe, which has never ceased. Now, how the expansion is done, it becomes the object of everyone's imagination.

Regarding quantum mechanics, Einstein was consulted for what he had to say about it, and he said that he would not waste his time with it, as it didn't make much sense to him. Then, he let go the famous saying that God does not play dice. Now, go figure what he had in mind to connect quantum mechanics with God playing dice.

And last, for multiverses, I prefer to think of constelations of galaxies. The idea of little universes within the universe or universes succeeding universes seems to be too much for the mind to grasp.

Ben

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1641 Nov 12, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
If that’s what you say, fair enough
I see no links – I just looked back to the beginning of the month on this thread, way past your original claim and no links to any theoretical scientists. Therefore we must assume you are lying.
My question was simply in response to your statement. I see nothing stupid about asking if you have lost any bets when you attempt to discredit someone for loosing a bet. A simple answer would have done much to clear the hypocrisy that is associated with your posts. That you are unwilling to answer it because no doubt the answer makes you look stupid is not my problem.
John Preskill - on naked singularities

Kip Thorne - on the ultimate resolution of the apparent contradiction between Hawking radiation resulting in loss of information, and a requirement of quantum mechanics that information cannot be destroyed

Gordon Kane - on Higgs Boson

Kip Thorne - Stephen Hawking placed -- and eventually lost -- a bet against the existence of a black hole in Cygnus X-1.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1642 Nov 13, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>John Preskill - on naked singularities
Kip Thorne - on the ultimate resolution of the apparent contradiction between Hawking radiation resulting in loss of information, and a requirement of quantum mechanics that information cannot be destroyed
Gordon Kane - on Higgs Boson
Kip Thorne - Stephen Hawking placed -- and eventually lost -- a bet against the existence of a black hole in Cygnus X-1.
Well it’s good to see a list at last even though you claim to have previously posted links and yet it is a list, it is not links but never mind, it’s a list, a short one of 3 so let us celebrate - Good effort for trying

You continue to rant on about the bets that Hawkins has lost and yet are unwilling to confirm or deny whether you have lost any bets. And still Hawking has been made Commander of the Order of the British Empire, been presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the US as well as 12 other officially recognised awards that I know of. He as buildings named after him in 3 countries. Furthered scientific research and understanding in several esoteric areas and had a statue created in his honour. Not a bad score for a guy who looses a few bets eh?

Perhaps your are getting bets mixed up or perhaps I am misunderstanding the way you write, Preskill was not involved in the Cygnus X-1 bet – In Thorne/Hawking – Preskill bet Thorne and Hawking bet together. Although Hawking has conceded and paid up, Thorne who also bet against Preskill has not conceded. The bet is still open.

RE the Thorne–Hawking Cygnus bet – The bet was the Cygnus X-1 was a black hole, not the area of space but the object itself - have you considered that it was a hedge bet, If Hawking lost the bet it would confirm his work, I guess not.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1643 Nov 13, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it’s good to see a list at last even though you claim to have previously posted links and yet it is a list, it is not links but never mind, it’s a list, a short one of 3 so let us celebrate - Good effort for trying
You continue to rant on about the bets that Hawkins has lost and yet are unwilling to confirm or deny whether you have lost any bets. And still Hawking has been made Commander of the Order of the British Empire, been presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the US as well as 12 other officially recognised awards that I know of. He as buildings named after him in 3 countries. Furthered scientific research and understanding in several esoteric areas and had a statue created in his honour. Not a bad score for a guy who looses a few bets eh?
Perhaps your are getting bets mixed up or perhaps I am misunderstanding the way you write, Preskill was not involved in the Cygnus X-1 bet – In Thorne/Hawking – Preskill bet Thorne and Hawking bet together. Although Hawking has conceded and paid up, Thorne who also bet against Preskill has not conceded. The bet is still open.
RE the Thorne–Hawking Cygnus bet – The bet was the Cygnus X-1 was a black hole, not the area of space but the object itself - have you considered that it was a hedge bet, If Hawking lost the bet it would confirm his work, I guess not.
Did you know that Hawking makes bets to get other people to work to win? That sometimes he makes bets that he knows that he is going to lose on purpose? Apparently not otherwise you wouldn't be making such a big stink about it.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1644 Nov 13, 2012
People learn better when they make the steps toward a conclusion on their own or with little guidence. If they are just told what something is or given an answer they are most likely going to retain nothing.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1645 Nov 13, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Did you know that Hawking makes bets to get other people to work to win? That sometimes he makes bets that he knows that he is going to lose on purpose? Apparently not otherwise you wouldn't be making such a big stink about it.
Ehh again, I just told you that, I asked you to consider whether it was a hedge bet. Funny you should concentrate on it AFTER I mentioned it

Ehh you are the one making the stink, You are the one repeatedly bringing up the fact that Hawking has lost bets. You are the one who originally posted that you would not consider Hawking because he lost bets. All I am asking is for you to honestly say whether your judgement is valid. Obviously it is not.
Lil Ticked wrote:
People learn better when they make the steps toward a conclusion on their own or with little guidence. If they are just told what something is or given an answer they are most likely going to retain nothing.
Very true but nothing to do with the fact that you are not willing to confirm or deny that you have lost bets

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1646 Nov 13, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true but nothing to do with the fact that you are not willing to confirm or deny that you have lost bets
lol. who is making a stink? How many times have you asked that pointless question?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1647 Nov 13, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>lol. who is making a stink? How many times have you asked that pointless question?
It’s only pointless to you because you are too sh|t scared that it will make you lopok a fool

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1648 Nov 13, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
It’s only pointless to you because you are too sh|t scared that it will make you lopok a fool
You only push the point because it is all you have. Do you have a ten page rant prepared?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1649 Nov 13, 2012
Ben_Masada wrote:
If you read Job 28:7, "The Lord stretches out the North over empty space, and suspends the earth over nothing at all."
Equating the quote of Job to the expansion of the universe is quite a 'stretch', I would say. First, the Job quote mentions the north pole which is not a phenomenon on the scale of thew universe, but only on the scale of the earth. Second, the sky is described in other places to be like a tent: it was thought to be a physical thing that had holes allowing the light from stars to get through. It was *this* tent that was 'stretched' over the empty space below to form the sky.

This is hardly the same as the modern view of the expansion of the universe.
And here, I would like to bring to your attention the testimony of two famous Jews: One is Einstein who, involved in the research about the expansion of the universe, was asked if he believed in God. His answer was that all his life was trying to catch God at His work of creation. That's expansion. The other Jew is Jesus who said that the Lord has never ceased working to this very day.(John 5:17) I take this as a reference to the expansion of the universe, which has never ceased. Now, how the expansion is done, it becomes the object of everyone's imagination.
And the point is that it *isn't* done. The expansion is still going on; it is even accelerating. Second, Einstein frequently stated he did not believe in a personal deity, but rather one similar to Spinoza's God, which is essentially the laws of the universe.
Regarding quantum mechanics, Einstein was consulted for what he had to say about it, and he said that he would not waste his time with it, as it didn't make much sense to him. Then, he let go the famous saying that God does not play dice. Now, go figure what he had in mind to connect quantum mechanics with God playing dice.
And Einstein was demonstrably wrong. many of the thought experiments he proposed to support his viewpoint have actually been performed. The results agree with the quantum mechanical predictions,not with Einstein's.
And last, for multiverses, I prefer to think of constelations of galaxies. The idea of little universes within the universe or universes succeeding universes seems to be too much for the mind to grasp.
Ben
Hardly too difficult to grasp for those who work with this stuff. But galaxies are far, far smaller than even our own universe. And if the multiverse view is correct, our universe is only one out of many.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1650 Nov 13, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>You only push the point because it is all you have. Do you have a ten page rant prepared?
I have plenty, it was you who attempted to discredit a respected scientist because he lost a bet that he longed to loose but are not willing to admit you have lost bets in which you discredit yourself with you won claims. Very hypocritical of you, well done.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1651 Nov 13, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I have plenty, it was you who attempted to discredit a respected scientist because he lost a bet that he longed to loose but are not willing to admit you have lost bets in which you discredit yourself with you won claims. Very hypocritical of you, well done.
A little slow on the draw aren't you. You are too busy defending your hero in chair that you missed every thing said other than the bet portion of the comments made. Lol, literalist are fun . Stick to your hero worship because if it wasn't for him you wouldn't know what to think.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1652 Nov 13, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>A little slow on the draw aren't you. You are too busy defending your hero in chair that you missed every thing said other than the bet portion of the comments made. Lol, literalist are fun . Stick to your hero worship because if it wasn't for him you wouldn't know what to think.
Wrong, in this case I am not interested an everything said, your irrelevancies are irrelevant.

I am only interested that you are a hypocritical fool and you continue to prove it

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1653 Nov 13, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Equating the quote of Job to the expansion of the universe is quite a 'stretch', I would say. First, the Job quote mentions the north pole which is not a phenomenon on the scale of thew universe, but only on the scale of the earth. Second, the sky is described in other places to be like a tent: it was thought to be a physical thing that had holes allowing the light from stars to get through. It was *this* tent that was 'stretched' over the empty space below to form the sky.
This is hardly the same as the modern view of the expansion of the universe.
<quoted text>
And the point is that it *isn't* done. The expansion is still going on; it is even accelerating. Second, Einstein frequently stated he did not believe in a personal deity, but rather one similar to Spinoza's God, which is essentially the laws of the universe.
<quoted text>
And Einstein was demonstrably wrong. many of the thought experiments he proposed to support his viewpoint have actually been performed. The results agree with the quantum mechanical predictions,not with Einstein's.
<quoted text>
Hardly too difficult to grasp for those who work with this stuff. But galaxies are far, far smaller than even our own universe. And if the multiverse view is correct, our universe is only one out of many.
-------

One of the problems with you is that, like theists who believe by faith, you take everything literal. Of course, I know that the expression "the North Pole" is not a universal phenomenon, but the universe as the Biblical writer saw it at the time. He used the expression "stretch of the North" for "expansion of the universe." That was a time when atheists of the Jewish monotheistic God were worshiping the elements in space. Of course, it couldn't be like the modern view of expansion of the universe. But they did have the right idea.

So, Einstein was wrong, wasn't he? If you are so much wiser than he was, you should have told him about quantum mechanics before he died.

And still about multiverses, you cannot explain about the origin of
our present universe, how can you speak of multiverses? Let us try to understand where we live first and make things possible to be grasped to future generations.

Ben

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1654 Nov 14, 2012
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
One of the problems with you is that, like theists who believe by faith, you take everything literal. Of course, I know that the expression "the North Pole" is not a universal phenomenon, but the universe as the Biblical writer saw it at the time. He used the expression "stretch of the North" for "expansion of the universe." That was a time when atheists of the Jewish monotheistic God were worshiping the elements in space. Of course, it couldn't be like the modern view of expansion of the universe. But they did have the right idea.
Nice fantasy you have there.
So, Einstein was wrong, wasn't he? If you are so much wiser than he was, you should have told him about quantum mechanics before he died.
The relevant experiments weren't done until about a decade after he died. His intuition was wrong: the universe is, in fact, probabilistic. This has been supported by actual observations which contradict the intuitions that Einstein had. He was a very great physicist, but he was human. He was occasionally wrong.
And still about multiverses, you cannot explain about the origin of
our present universe, how can you speak of multiverses? Let us try to understand where we live first and make things possible to be grasped to future generations.
Ben
Well, one possible way our universe came about is by budding off from a multiverse which is eternal (no beginning).

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1655 Nov 14, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice fantasy you have there.
<quoted text>
The relevant experiments weren't done until about a decade after he died. His intuition was wrong: the universe is, in fact, probabilistic. This has been supported by actual observations which contradict the intuitions that Einstein had. He was a very great physicist, but he was human. He was occasionally wrong.
<quoted text>
Well, one possible way our universe came about is by budding off from a multiverse which is eternal (no beginning).
--------

Well, that's not what Cosmologistes started to teach from the time the big bang was theorized. But rather that the big bang was the origin of the universe. In that case, it was not eternal. You can't have both ways. Either the universe is eternal or it began with the big bang. That's a nut that's gonna prove hard to crack. To take the universe as eternal, the big bang will prove to be a myth as a result of folly. To accept that it had a beginning, you will be agreeing with the Bible that says so for thousands of years. How is gonna be?

Ben

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min replaytime 66,880
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 24 min replaytime 28,529
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 8 hr Subduction Zone 3,465
is it ever right to hate Christians as a group? 10 hr Superwilly 19
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 14 hr superwilly 457
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Apr 22 IB DaMann 5,975
News Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... Apr 20 Eagle 12 9
More from around the web