Checkmate, Atheists!

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The expansion of the universe is an observation.
Edwin Hubble showed that first, almost 90 years ago.

No [censored]? Well tell me - what proves that this isn't a purely local effect?

I don't get it. What is supposed to be local to what?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The existence of the cosmic microwave background
radiation is an observation whose most natural (and
by this time universally accepted) interpretation
is that at very early times the universe began was
in a hot, dense, nearly uniform thermalized state.

Actually the interpretation of the background radiation could be a dozen
different things. But feel free to keep your own mind constrained.

TomKat, I asked you earlier to post some of your explanations.
Now you've got a dozen different ones. Just describe one or
two, and stop being a four-flusher.

In case you haven't figured it out, when you call me stupid
or closed-minded, it doesn't make me mad or irritate me.
It's always good to practice explaining these concepts to
people, especially on a coffee break when Greg's buying
my coffee.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is possible that a theory which includes a time=0,
effectively a creation event, will never be complete,
since the prospects of studying the time before t=0
(if that even *means* anything) are very limited.

As I recall, none of the math works closer than 10^-23 seconds.

Oh come on, you don't recall that like you worked it out.
You read it somewhere. That's fine; so did I. Nobody
pretends that we have a physical theory that works at
such short times and high energies. The rest of physical
cosmology explains what happens after that.

Ben

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually the interpretation of the background radiation could be a
dozen different things.

Donald Munro said:

Quoted message said:

All of which amount to cargo cult physics.

Tom Kunich said:

I suggest you refrain from talking about stuff you know nothing about. It
allows people to see you for what you are.

OK if you think you know it all please describe at least
one alternative theory for background radiation which has
been peer reviewed, considered credible and published.

Quoted message said:

In case you haven't figured it out, when you call me stupid or
closed-minded, it doesn't make me mad or irritate me. It's always good to
practice explaining these concepts to people, especially on a coffee break
when Greg's buying my coffee.

What, you mean Greg isn't paying for the top of the range
Saeco expresso/capuccino machine ? You really need to be
more ambitous when applying for grants.

Quoted message said:

In case you haven't figured it out, when you call me stupid
or closed-minded, it doesn't make me mad or irritate me.
It's always good to practice explaining these concepts to
people, especially on a coffee break when Greg's buying
my coffee.

anyone seeing rbr posters from the perspective of

"After this point, the atoms and the background radiation
decouple, losing close thermal contact, and evolve separately.
The atoms do stuff like collapsing into galaxies, forming stars,
and making heavy elements that are eventually formed into
bicycles and RBR posters."

probably isn't going to get mad so easily 🙂

heather
ps. a dumbass funny i like & that your post made me think of:
http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/111807/heat-death-of-the-universe.gif

h squared said:

ps. a dumbass funny i like & that your post made me think of:http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/111807/heat-death-of-the-universe.gif

Dumbass -

How do you know this brane doesn't collide w/ another one before that
happens?

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

h squared said:

ps. a dumbass funny i like & that your post made me think of:
http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/111807/heat-death-of-the-universe.gif

Your post made think of http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/etc/tieten.html

h squared said:

ps. a dumbass funny i like & that your post made me think of:
http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/111807/heat-death-of-the-universe.gif

You must be on vacation if you're allowed to look at funny
pictures instead of ledgers and balance sheets.

Anyway if you ask greg nicely he'll make you one of his
pets and you'll be able to do 3 hour rides every afternoon
instead of studying boring accountancy stuff.
OTOH perhaps he'll make you read Adam Smith.

Ted van de Weteringe said:

Your post made [me] think of http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/etc/tieten.html

Or rather: "You posting." Sorry.

Ted van de Weteringe said:

Ted van de Weteringe said:

Your post made [me] think of http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/etc/tieten.html

Or rather: "You posting." Sorry.

Don't apologize

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You read it somewhere. That's fine; so did I. Nobody
pretends that we have a physical theory that works at
such short times and high energies. The rest of physical
cosmology explains what happens after that.

Here's the bottom line - you claim that religionists are crazy for believing
that God created everything out of nothing. Instead you believe a theory
that claims that the universe was created out of nothing by nothing.

And you just don't get it do you?

Apparently you don't know what "local" is? How far can we see? How do we
know what the universe is like outside of our sphere of observation? Since
the physics is plain - you cannot create matter without creating an equal
amount of antimatter you either need to explain where all of the antimatter
is or admit that perhaps science isn't all knowing.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

You read it somewhere. That's fine; so did I. Nobody
pretends that we have a physical theory that works at
such short times and high energies. The rest of physical
cosmology explains what happens after that.

Here's the bottom line - you claim that religionists are crazy for believing
that God created everything out of nothing. Instead you believe a theory
that claims that the universe was created out of nothing by nothing.
And you just don't get it do you?

I didn't say anything about God. I don't think the existence
or absence of a big bang theory says anything about God,
positive or negative. I only intervened in this thread when
you started misleading people about your knowledge of
physics, which you consistently refuse to back up when asked.

Quoted message said:

Apparently you don't know what "local" is? How far can we see? How do we
know what the universe is like outside of our sphere of observation? Since
the physics is plain - you cannot create matter without creating an equal
amount of antimatter you either need to explain where all of the antimatter
is or admit that perhaps science isn't all knowing.

You're wrong about the antimatter. At very high energies, at
t~10^-33 sec, small violations in charge-parity symmetry in
most reasonable high-energy theories, combined with non-
equilibrium conditions, can produce a baryon asymmetry,
generating a high matter/antimatter ratio. Chapter 6
"Baryogenesis" of Kolb & Turner's book "The Early Universe"
goes over this in detail. Beyond that it's really out of my
expertise.

I asked about "local" because you claimed the Hubble law
for the expansion was only a local phenomenon. You seem
to have defined "local" as "within the observable universe."
Within that area, the expansion is valid and the existence
of the expansion plus background radiation implies an
early hot dense phase, for which you still haven't told us your
alternative explanation. I hope it has something to do with
the fifth force of nature, the Kunich force, which is only
measurable by SRM cranks.

Ben

h squared said:

anyone seeing rbr posters from the perspective of

"After this point, the atoms and the background radiation
decouple, losing close thermal contact, and evolve separately.
The atoms do stuff like collapsing into galaxies, forming stars,
and making heavy elements that are eventually formed into
bicycles and RBR posters."

probably isn't going to get mad so easily 🙂

I try to take the long term view of things.

Quoted message said:

heather
ps. a dumbass funny i like & that your post made me think of:
http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/111807/heat-death-of-the-universe.gif

Been there.

But now that I've trolled you into posting, my weekend
has already been successful and it's only Friday evening.

Ben

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Here's the bottom line - you claim that religionists are crazy for
believing
that God created everything out of nothing. Instead you believe a theory
that claims that the universe was created out of nothing by nothing.
And you just don't get it do you?

I didn't say anything about God.

Ahh, then you stepped into a conversation merely to change the subject.

Quoted message said:

I only intervened in this thread when
you started misleading people about your knowledge of
physics, which you consistently refuse to back up when asked.

You mean my questioning your belief that what you can see is everything? Or
your belief that you understand physics but can't explain the absense of
antimatter? Or how about explaining an accelerating universe if the Big Bang
started everything.

By ALL means tell us how you're a real expert on physics.

Quoted message said:

You're wrong about the antimatter. At very high energies, at
t~10^-33 sec, small violations in charge-parity symmetry in
most reasonable high-energy theories, combined with non-
equilibrium conditions, can produce a baryon asymmetry,
generating a high matter/antimatter ratio.

I like your "most reasonable high energy theories" claim without even
blinking.

Quoted message said:

I asked about "local" because you claimed the Hubble law
for the expansion was only a local phenomenon.

Actually I was trying to figure out this accelerating expansion thing that
you seem to pass off without comment.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

h squared said:

ps. a dumbass funny i like & that your post made me think of:http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/111807/heat-death-of-the-universe.gif

Dumbass -

How do you know this brane doesn't collide w/ another one before that
happens?

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

i have no idea what you are talking about. (is it a joke or do you
expect me to explain string theory to you? i'm an ACCOUNTING student. we
spend two full quarters just on x=y+z.)

here is a comic you might like better
http://xkcd.com/66/
(make sure to scroll down to receive your full share of abuse 🙂 )

hh

Ted van de Weteringe said:

did you get married recently, van de weteringe?

heather van de winkel

h squared said:

heather van de winkel

I thought it was heather van rental.