There was no Big Bang, Truth shall set you free!!!!

[the joint]

something that big couldn't have created itself

Look up multi-verse and M-Theory. A proposed theory is that there are many universes created by "branes" colliding with one another to create new universes. The universes are essentially like bubbles floating around, and when they smack into one another they create another bubble. This is where the big bang originated from. Two branes colliding and forming a new universe.

They would have developed methods to let us all live to age 500 long ago.

They have... look up the SIR2 gene research. This couldn't have been unlocked until DNA research was made readily available.

Whether there are multiple universes or only one is pretty irrelevant.

If, on one hand, there are multiple universes that we can confirm to exist, then an explanation is required for the cause of these other universes.  Simply knowing how our universe was created is nice, but not very helpful if we know there are others (i.e. What caused them all?).

On the other hand, if only our universe exists, then we're stuck with essentially the same question: What caused this Universe to exist?

Both scenarios can be approached equally.  Let's simply reduce Universe(s) to "Reality" in a set-theoretic way.  This simplifies our approach:

1) If there are multiple universes constituting the set of reality 'R,' is there anything real enough outside of 'R' which could have caused 'R?'

2) If there is only one universe constituting the set of reality 'R,' is there anything real enough outside of 'R' which could have caused 'R?'

Even though I use the term parallel universes at times, the idea of "universe" implies everything. A person who wants to think about something that is NOT part of everything, just might have to twist his brain all out of shape to do it. It might not be possible to do.

Extra universal would indicate that logic does not fit, except, possible, completely by accident.

So how, then, do you reconcile your claims of a real god who transcends the Universe?

You claim to make true, logical statements about a transcendent god despite claiming that one would have to "twist his brain all out of shape to do it."

Way to contradict yourself for the thousandth time.

[1714987257]

1714987257

[1714987257]

1714987257

[1714987257]

1714987257

[shanecoins]

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

Code:

Axioms: ( 2𝑘 ÷ 0 = 0 ) ∧ ( (2𝑘 + 1) ÷ 0 = ⅟₀ ) ∧ ( *|𝑎| = ⅟₀ − |𝑎| )

( 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20 )  ⇒  [( 𝑔(−*⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(−4) = *0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(0) = −*20 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(*4) = 0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(*0) = 20 )]

In the above, zero and hyperzero are akin to opposite “edges” of a one-dimensional space observed from the former. Ali and Das’ model suggests a universe not entirely unlike the graph of 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20.

fascinating :-)

[sdp]

if you read the bible you will see it was in your face before science all along

Yes, if you ignore the blatant mathematical errors and the fact that the person who wrote the bible thinks the earth is 5000 years old yes I suppose you could say the bible was scientific, in the same way that news journalists are always factually accurate about everything they report on.

Lets not get into the heaven is hotter than hell argument to prove the point shall we?

The bible was written by many people over many periods of time and in different places in different languages.  Then translated into English when we still used thou, ye, and thee.  To say "the person who wrote the bible", is to say "I am ignorant of the where the bible comes from".

sdp

[Joshuar]

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

Code:

Axioms: ( 2𝑘 ÷ 0 = 0 ) ∧ ( (2𝑘 + 1) ÷ 0 = ⅟₀ ) ∧ ( *|𝑎| = ⅟₀ − |𝑎| )

( 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20 )  ⇒  [( 𝑔(−*⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(−4) = *0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(0) = −*20 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(*4) = 0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(*0) = 20 )]

In the above, zero and hyperzero are akin to opposite “edges” of a one-dimensional space observed from the former. Ali and Das’ model suggests a universe not entirely unlike the graph of 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20.

That's the new theory that predicts the universe never had a beginning and was always here, right. This is even worse news for illogical christians, *cough* BADecker *cough*, who believe god created the world in 6 days, than the big bang theory's description of their being a central point of origin to the universe billions of years ago, i.e a beginning.

[BADecker]

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

Code:

Axioms: ( 2𝑘 ÷ 0 = 0 ) ∧ ( (2𝑘 + 1) ÷ 0 = ⅟₀ ) ∧ ( *|𝑎| = ⅟₀ − |𝑎| )

( 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20 )  ⇒  [( 𝑔(−*⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(−4) = *0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(0) = −*20 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(*4) = 0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(*0) = 20 )]

In the above, zero and hyperzero are akin to opposite “edges” of a one-dimensional space observed from the former. Ali and Das’ model suggests a universe not entirely unlike the graph of 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20.

That's the new theory that predicts the universe never had a beginning and was always here, right. This is even worse news for illogical christians, *cough* BADecker *cough*, who believe god created the world in 6 days, than the big bang theory's description of their being a central point of origin to the universe billions of years ago, i.e a beginning.

If that is truly what this calc is all about, then it is way too small. Nobody knows how to manipulate people into living 500 years, because nobody knows enough. Even if we had the knowledge to manipulate, we still are almost infinitely far from actually making life, to say nothing about human life. This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.

[ahmedjamal1998]

OK PPL !

Stop fighting on useless talk!

[MegaFall]

if you read the bible you will see it was in your face before science all along

Yes, if you ignore the blatant mathematical errors and the fact that the person who wrote the bible thinks the earth is 5000 years old yes I suppose you could say the bible was scientific, in the same way that news journalists are always factually accurate about everything they report on.

Lets not get into the heaven is hotter than hell argument to prove the point shall we?

The bible was written by many people over many periods of time and in different places in different languages.  Then translated into English when we still used thou, ye, and thee.  To say "the person who wrote the bible", is to say "I am ignorant of the where the bible comes from".

sdp

That plus the English translation was written using the King's English, which essentially no commoners understood. Couple that with the fact that Court of King James removed, re-worded, and added countless stuff that they thought was unimportant, or contradicted the king's ideologies. There's at least another 3 books of the bible that are not included in the King James version.

Couple that with the fact that no where in the bible does it actually state that you go to Heaven as reward for anything; not once does it say. Plus if people knew the King's English they would understand that term "heaven" is simply the King's English version of the word "sky". It is not a definitive place, but another word referring to the sky.

Most subsequent language translations used the King James version to translate into other languages.

As a result of that, we have generation after generation of deluded Christians believing nothing more than a highly perverted version of the bible.

[Daniel91]

if you read the bible you will see it was in your face before science all along

Yes, if you ignore the blatant mathematical errors and the fact that the person who wrote the bible thinks the earth is 5000 years old yes I suppose you could say the bible was scientific, in the same way that news journalists are always factually accurate about everything they report on.

Lets not get into the heaven is hotter than hell argument to prove the point shall we?

The bible was written by many people over many periods of time and in different places in different languages.  Then translated into English when we still used thou, ye, and thee.  To say "the person who wrote the bible", is to say "I am ignorant of the where the bible comes from".

sdp

That plus the English translation was written using the King's English, which essentially no commoners understood. Couple that with the fact that Court of King James removed, re-worded, and added countless stuff that they thought was unimportant, or contradicted the king's ideologies. There's at least another 3 books of the bible that are not included in the King James version.

Couple that with the fact that no where in the bible does it actually state that you go to Heaven as reward for anything; not once does it say. Plus if people knew the King's English they would understand that term "heaven" is simply the King's English version of the word "sky". It is not a definitive place, but another word referring to the sky.

Most subsequent language translations used the King James version to translate into other languages.

As a result of that, we have generation after generation of deluded Christians believing nothing more than a highly perverted version of the bible.

I don't think that you are right here.
Yes, we can talk about quality of translation but we can't explore value of Bible simple in scientific way.
Bible is much more than this, spiritual guidance for believers, spiritual scripture.
Most Christians believe that people who wrote Bible was spiritually inspired.
You can't compare Bible with other, ordinary book, or look in Bible in the same way as you look other books.
We have first to research history recorded in Bible, 2000 years ago or more and compare actual facts with Bible facts.
Based on such research we can make some concrete conclusions, not just based on quality of translations.
And yes, for believers Heaven is not just sky but have much more deep content.

[MegaFall]

Just watch this:
https://youtu.be/iRGr_EX1VPY?t=5m31s

and this:

https://youtu.be/iRGr_EX1VPY?t=20m15s

[BADecker]

if you read the bible you will see it was in your face before science all along

Yes, if you ignore the blatant mathematical errors and the fact that the person who wrote the bible thinks the earth is 5000 years old yes I suppose you could say the bible was scientific, in the same way that news journalists are always factually accurate about everything they report on.

Lets not get into the heaven is hotter than hell argument to prove the point shall we?

The bible was written by many people over many periods of time and in different places in different languages.  Then translated into English when we still used thou, ye, and thee.  To say "the person who wrote the bible", is to say "I am ignorant of the where the bible comes from".

sdp

That plus the English translation was written using the King's English, which essentially no commoners understood. Couple that with the fact that Court of King James removed, re-worded, and added countless stuff that they thought was unimportant, or contradicted the king's ideologies. There's at least another 3 books of the bible that are not included in the King James version.

Couple that with the fact that no where in the bible does it actually state that you go to Heaven as reward for anything; not once does it say. Plus if people knew the King's English they would understand that term "heaven" is simply the King's English version of the word "sky". It is not a definitive place, but another word referring to the sky.

Most subsequent language translations used the King James version to translate into other languages.

As a result of that, we have generation after generation of deluded Christians believing nothing more than a highly perverted version of the bible.

I don't think that you are right here.
Yes, we can talk about quality of translation but we can't explore value of Bible simple in scientific way.
Bible is much more than this, spiritual guidance for believers, spiritual scripture.
Most Christians believe that people who wrote Bible was spiritually inspired.
You can't compare Bible with other, ordinary book, or look in Bible in the same way as you look other books.
We have first to research history recorded in Bible, 2000 years ago or more and compare actual facts with Bible facts.
Based on such research we can make some concrete conclusions, not just based on quality of translations.
And yes, for believers Heaven is not just sky but have much more deep content.

In the Revelation, "Heaven" is described in several different ways, a couple of which are:
1. The New Jerusalem where God, Himself, gives His people their light and sustenance;
2. The New Heavens and the New Earth, depicting that the old universe will have passed away (destroyed) and a new universe will take its place, one founded on new physics that might retain some of the physics of the old universe.

[Joshuar]

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

Code:

Axioms: ( 2𝑘 ÷ 0 = 0 ) ∧ ( (2𝑘 + 1) ÷ 0 = ⅟₀ ) ∧ ( *|𝑎| = ⅟₀ − |𝑎| )

( 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20 )  ⇒  [( 𝑔(−*⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(−4) = *0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(0) = −*20 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(*4) = 0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(*0) = 20 )]

In the above, zero and hyperzero are akin to opposite “edges” of a one-dimensional space observed from the former. Ali and Das’ model suggests a universe not entirely unlike the graph of 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20.

That's the new theory that predicts the universe never had a beginning and was always here, right. This is even worse news for illogical christians, *cough* BADecker *cough*, who believe god created the world in 6 days, than the big bang theory's description of their being a central point of origin to the universe billions of years ago, i.e a beginning.

If that is truly what this calc is all about, then it is way too small. Nobody knows how to manipulate people into living 500 years, because nobody knows enough. Even if we had the knowledge to manipulate, we still are almost infinitely far from actually making life, to say nothing about human life. This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.

You've made no sense, again. "Infinitely far from making life", what, do realize we've been cloning since the 20th century right? Do you even know what that equation is? Are you high? What are you even talking about. We're on the boundaries of providing indefinite life to people via stem cell research and nanomachines. Go educate yourself.

"This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.", that makes absolutely no sense, this is quantum equations sir, which is a level of magnitude higher than anything you'd be able to understand. Go learn some quantum physics/mechanics, then talk before sprouting off illogical statements that not even a 5 year old would make, troll.

[BADecker]

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

Code:

Axioms: ( 2𝑘 ÷ 0 = 0 ) ∧ ( (2𝑘 + 1) ÷ 0 = ⅟₀ ) ∧ ( *|𝑎| = ⅟₀ − |𝑎| )

( 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20 )  ⇒  [( 𝑔(−*⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(−4) = *0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(0) = −*20 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(*4) = 0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(*0) = 20 )]

In the above, zero and hyperzero are akin to opposite “edges” of a one-dimensional space observed from the former. Ali and Das’ model suggests a universe not entirely unlike the graph of 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20.

That's the new theory that predicts the universe never had a beginning and was always here, right. This is even worse news for illogical christians, *cough* BADecker *cough*, who believe god created the world in 6 days, than the big bang theory's description of their being a central point of origin to the universe billions of years ago, i.e a beginning.

If that is truly what this calc is all about, then it is way too small. Nobody knows how to manipulate people into living 500 years, because nobody knows enough. Even if we had the knowledge to manipulate, we still are almost infinitely far from actually making life, to say nothing about human life. This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.

You've made no sense, again. "Infinitely far from making life", what, do realize we've been cloning since the 20th century right? Do you even know what that equation is? Are you high? What are you even talking about. We're on the boundaries of providing indefinite life to people via stem cell research and nanomachines. Go educate yourself.

"This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.", that makes absolutely no sense, this is quantum equations sir, which is a level of magnitude higher than anything you'd be able to understand. Go learn some quantum physics/mechanics, then talk before sprouting off illogical statements that not even a 5 year old would make, troll.

You are coming along so well for a little guy. After you get a little older, you will start to understand just how complex and grand things really are. For now, go on outside and play with the other kids. Mommy will call you when dinner is ready.

[Joshuar]

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

Code:

Axioms: ( 2𝑘 ÷ 0 = 0 ) ∧ ( (2𝑘 + 1) ÷ 0 = ⅟₀ ) ∧ ( *|𝑎| = ⅟₀ − |𝑎| )

( 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20 )  ⇒  [( 𝑔(−*⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(−4) = *0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(0) = −*20 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(*4) = 0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(*0) = 20 )]

In the above, zero and hyperzero are akin to opposite “edges” of a one-dimensional space observed from the former. Ali and Das’ model suggests a universe not entirely unlike the graph of 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20.

That's the new theory that predicts the universe never had a beginning and was always here, right. This is even worse news for illogical christians, *cough* BADecker *cough*, who believe god created the world in 6 days, than the big bang theory's description of their being a central point of origin to the universe billions of years ago, i.e a beginning.

If that is truly what this calc is all about, then it is way too small. Nobody knows how to manipulate people into living 500 years, because nobody knows enough. Even if we had the knowledge to manipulate, we still are almost infinitely far from actually making life, to say nothing about human life. This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.

You've made no sense, again. "Infinitely far from making life", what, do realize we've been cloning since the 20th century right? Do you even know what that equation is? Are you high? What are you even talking about. We're on the boundaries of providing indefinite life to people via stem cell research and nanomachines. Go educate yourself.

"This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.", that makes absolutely no sense, this is quantum equations sir, which is a level of magnitude higher than anything you'd be able to understand. Go learn some quantum physics/mechanics, then talk before sprouting off illogical statements that not even a 5 year old would make, troll.

You are coming along so well for a little guy. After you get a little older, you will start to understand just how complex and grand things really are. For now, go on outside and play with the other kids. Mommy will call you when dinner is ready.

You're a troll. You have no idea about anything, literally. You don't know logic, you don't know quantum mechanics, you don't know science, you don't know history, you don't know about technology.


What do you even know? Oh yea, making inaccurate and illogical statements. Got it.

[BADecker]

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

Code:

Axioms: ( 2𝑘 ÷ 0 = 0 ) ∧ ( (2𝑘 + 1) ÷ 0 = ⅟₀ ) ∧ ( *|𝑎| = ⅟₀ − |𝑎| )

( 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20 )  ⇒  [( 𝑔(−*⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(−4) = *0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(0) = −*20 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(*4) = 0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(*0) = 20 )]

In the above, zero and hyperzero are akin to opposite “edges” of a one-dimensional space observed from the former. Ali and Das’ model suggests a universe not entirely unlike the graph of 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20.

That's the new theory that predicts the universe never had a beginning and was always here, right. This is even worse news for illogical christians, *cough* BADecker *cough*, who believe god created the world in 6 days, than the big bang theory's description of their being a central point of origin to the universe billions of years ago, i.e a beginning.

If that is truly what this calc is all about, then it is way too small. Nobody knows how to manipulate people into living 500 years, because nobody knows enough. Even if we had the knowledge to manipulate, we still are almost infinitely far from actually making life, to say nothing about human life. This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.

You've made no sense, again. "Infinitely far from making life", what, do realize we've been cloning since the 20th century right? Do you even know what that equation is? Are you high? What are you even talking about. We're on the boundaries of providing indefinite life to people via stem cell research and nanomachines. Go educate yourself.

"This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.", that makes absolutely no sense, this is quantum equations sir, which is a level of magnitude higher than anything you'd be able to understand. Go learn some quantum physics/mechanics, then talk before sprouting off illogical statements that not even a 5 year old would make, troll.

You are coming along so well for a little guy. After you get a little older, you will start to understand just how complex and grand things really are. For now, go on outside and play with the other kids. Mommy will call you when dinner is ready.

You're a troll. You have no idea about anything, literally. You don't know logic, you don't know quantum mechanics, you don't know science, you don't know history, you don't know about technology.


What do you even know? Oh yea, making inaccurate and illogical statements. Got it.

Now, now. Go on back out and play. You can come back in when you grow up. But that won't happen, will it?

We adults have work to do. Be a good little boy and go back out and play.

[Joshuar]

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

Code:

Axioms: ( 2𝑘 ÷ 0 = 0 ) ∧ ( (2𝑘 + 1) ÷ 0 = ⅟₀ ) ∧ ( *|𝑎| = ⅟₀ − |𝑎| )

( 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20 )  ⇒  [( 𝑔(−*⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(−4) = *0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(0) = −*20 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(⁵⁄₃) = 𝑔(*4) = 0 ) ∧ ( 𝑔(*0) = 20 )]

In the above, zero and hyperzero are akin to opposite “edges” of a one-dimensional space observed from the former. Ali and Das’ model suggests a universe not entirely unlike the graph of 𝑔(𝑡) = −3𝑡² + *7𝑡 − *20.

That's the new theory that predicts the universe never had a beginning and was always here, right. This is even worse news for illogical christians, *cough* BADecker *cough*, who believe god created the world in 6 days, than the big bang theory's description of their being a central point of origin to the universe billions of years ago, i.e a beginning.

If that is truly what this calc is all about, then it is way too small. Nobody knows how to manipulate people into living 500 years, because nobody knows enough. Even if we had the knowledge to manipulate, we still are almost infinitely far from actually making life, to say nothing about human life. This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.

You've made no sense, again. "Infinitely far from making life", what, do realize we've been cloning since the 20th century right? Do you even know what that equation is? Are you high? What are you even talking about. We're on the boundaries of providing indefinite life to people via stem cell research and nanomachines. Go educate yourself.

"This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.", that makes absolutely no sense, this is quantum equations sir, which is a level of magnitude higher than anything you'd be able to understand. Go learn some quantum physics/mechanics, then talk before sprouting off illogical statements that not even a 5 year old would make, troll.

You are coming along so well for a little guy. After you get a little older, you will start to understand just how complex and grand things really are. For now, go on outside and play with the other kids. Mommy will call you when dinner is ready.

You're a troll. You have no idea about anything, literally. You don't know logic, you don't know quantum mechanics, you don't know science, you don't know history, you don't know about technology.


What do you even know? Oh yea, making inaccurate and illogical statements. Got it.

Now, now. Go on back out and play. You can come back in when you grow up. But that won't happen, will it?

We adults have work to do. Be a good little boy and go back out and play.

Correct, I won't be responding to your nonsensical gibberish anymore. I and a plethora of others, have made enough posts singling out just how illogical, informed, and generally nonsensical you are for all reading these threads to see.

No one is going to be fooled by your hypocritical statements, outright lies or misconceptions/misrepresentations, and general "trollyness".

[sdp]

I can't say I understand what 0* is supposed to mean but Hubble's law is

v = H₀D

Where H₀ is hubble's constant.  D is the distance and v is the velocity.
In differential equations this is:

D' = k *D

Now D, is given by an exponential:

D=me^t. 

With k and m being constants.  Extrapolate it into the past you never get the distances to 0.

To get D = 0 for any real or complex t, we must assume D = 0 for all t.  So we know D could never have been 0 because it isn't 0 now.  Distances can approach zero but never get to 0. 

sdp

[BADecker]

The fact that red-shift stars have now been shown to simply be young stars nearby, rather than old stars zooming away from us at high speed, shows that the universe is much smaller than previously thought. In fact, the universe is so small that there is no way that a Big Bang could have happened.

In addition, black holes don't exist. This is because there isn't enough time (the universe is much smaller than thought, and time is much shorter than thought) for formation of black holes. In addition, electric cosmos theory is way more practical that any of the standard cosmology theories of today.

Many modern, so-called scientific theories are not even theories. They are simply touted as such by scientists who want an excuse to continue to be funded so they can keep on playing at what they do.

[Gimpeline]

The fact that red-shift stars have now been shown to simply be young stars nearby, rather than old stars zooming away from us at high speed, shows that the universe is much smaller than previously thought. In fact, the universe is so small that there is no way that a Big Bang could have happened.

In addition, black holes don't exist. This is because there isn't enough time (the universe is much smaller than thought, and time is much shorter than thought) for formation of black holes. In addition, electric cosmos theory is way more practical that any of the standard cosmology theories of today.

Many modern, so-called scientific theories are not even theories. They are simply touted as such by scientists who want an excuse to continue to be funded so they can keep on playing at what they do.

Creationists don't even have anything close to a therory. They just have a book from the iron age.
Science have moved forward. Sadly some people are still stuck in the dark ages believing their book is the truth because the book says so.
Thats all the evidence they need

[r3wt]

The fact that red-shift stars have now been shown to simply be young stars nearby, rather than old stars zooming away from us at high speed, shows that the universe is much smaller than previously thought. In fact, the universe is so small that there is no way that a Big Bang could have happened.

In addition, black holes don't exist. This is because there isn't enough time (the universe is much smaller than thought, and time is much shorter than thought) for formation of black holes. In addition, electric cosmos theory is way more practical that any of the standard cosmology theories of today.

Many modern, so-called scientific theories are not even theories. They are simply touted as such by scientists who want an excuse to continue to be funded so they can keep on playing at what they do.

Creationists don't even have anything close to a therory. They just have a book from the iron age.
Science have moved forward. Sadly some people are still stuck in the dark ages believing their book is the truth because the book says so.
Thats all the evidence they need

Here's my theory.

1. God either created the universe, or the universe spontaneously arose for no apparent reason.
2. Humanity emerged at somepoint and became sentient.
3. Early Humans felt a spiritual connection with the world, and alot of things that happened around them seemed to be of mystical nature.
4. Someone started writing religious documents to attempt to control the instincts (we call human instincts emotions, but they are still instincts) of a populace prone to rage and violence.
5. Some people found that through the bible, quran, or whatever else they followed the could get a spiritual form of moral guidance through their newfound religion, and stuck with it.
6. Some other people were spooked by the "Fire and Brimstone" messages in said religious texts, leading them to latch onto religion out of fear without true understanding and connection the Creator.
8. My Conclusion:
Good People = have a conscious and make conscious effort to make amends for any bad things they do. If there's a heaven, logic tells you thats where these people go.
Bad People = have no moral conscious. if there's a hell, thats probably where they go.

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.

[organofcorti]

The fact that red-shift stars have now been shown to simply be young stars nearby, rather than old stars zooming away from us at high speed, shows that the universe is much smaller than previously thought. In fact, the universe is so small that there is no way that a Big Bang could have happened.

In addition, black holes don't exist. This is because there isn't enough time (the universe is much smaller than thought, and time is much shorter than thought) for formation of black holes. In addition, electric cosmos theory is way more practical that any of the standard cosmology theories of today.

Many modern, so-called scientific theories are not even theories. They are simply touted as such by scientists who want an excuse to continue to be funded so they can keep on playing at what they do.

Creationists don't even have anything close to a therory. They just have a book from the iron age.
Science have moved forward. Sadly some people are still stuck in the dark ages believing their book is the truth because the book says so.
Thats all the evidence they need

Here's my theory.

1. God either created the universe, or the universe spontaneously arose for no apparent reason.
2. Humanity emerged at somepoint and became sentient.
3. Early Humans felt a spiritual connection with the world, and alot of things that happened around them seemed to be of mystical nature.
4. Someone started writing religious documents to attempt to control the instincts (we call human instincts emotions, but they are still instincts) of a populace prone to rage and violence.
5. Some people found that through the bible, quran, or whatever else they followed the could get a spiritual form of moral guidance through their newfound religion, and stuck with it.
6. Some other people were spooked by the "Fire and Brimstone" messages in said religious texts, leading them to latch onto religion out of fear without true understanding and connection the Creator.
8. My Conclusion:
Good People = have a conscious and make conscious effort to make amends for any bad things they do. If there's a heaven, logic tells you thats where these people go.
Bad People = have no moral conscious. if there's a hell, thats probably where they go.

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.

Alternatively some people have never understood why other people have needed a god, and rather than being spooked by religion find it irrelevant.