On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Kevin, > > Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began > ***Apparently you do not accept scientific evidence. It is you who has a fixed concept of how the universe began. > and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas. > ***There is none so inflexible as a crackpot pushing some ridiculous , unsupported and unscientific idea such as "the universe has existed forever". > The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to open > discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time before > that event. It was just rhetorical. > ***It was stupid. And if it were truly rhetorical, you'd have stated that upfront rather than go into insult mode. > > How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing > forever? > Why don't you just start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe and tell me where they went wrong? And since you're the one saying you need proof, provide proof of your supposition. You won't because you can't. > Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of that. > ***Feel free to refute that wikipedia article, especially all its dangerous biblical references. > If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an > open mind. > ***It would appear that you think having an open mind is by throwing the word "if" in front of a completely unsupported statement, then later on claiming it was just a rhetorical question. Your mind is closed. > Is it your intent to stop creative thought? > ***Is it yours? Why do you go down unscientific paths of thought and then at the same time denigrate biblical evidence? Because your mind is closed, not open. > > Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began > approximately 13+ billion years ago. > ***Start with the wikipedia article. Try to learn something. > The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to > correction. Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely > speculating. > ***Tell that to the multiple scientific disciplines that have narrowed down the range of time over the years. Tell them they're merely speculating, and that unless God speaks directly to them, they are incorrect. Good luck with that. > > Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole > event horizons? > ***A little bit. Do you accept the science surrounding it, or are you going to backtrack when it is shown to you that the same kind of science that talks about that is also the science that leads us to a 14B year old universe. > Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near > as great as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a > standstill. > ***No, they are not. They are capable of slowing time down, not bringing it to a standstill. > On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the > universe to reach that threshold? > ***The latest lecture by Dyson, for one thing. And other cosmologists. > Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction. > ***Perhaps you should. > > Do you consider the universe to be contained within some > physical boundary? > ***This has no bearing on the discussion. You're just fishing because you're all riled up, you don't know what you're talking about, your supposition is proven ridiculous, and you're anti-biblical to boot. That's a lot of close-mindedness for someone who looks at himself in such an opposite manner. > Please show me a sound basis for this belief > ***Already proceeding down a straw argument path, I see. > and just because we can not see beyond a certain distance does not mean > that it doesn't exist outside of our viewpoint. > ***Interesting postulation. But it has no bearing on the discussion at hand, so perhaps you should take up your discussion with all the scientists that have figured out through various means how old the universe is. > I am just speculating that time behaves in a similar manner. > ***And your speculation is crap. But in your close-mindedness, you have raised your hackles. If YOU are "just speculating", why do you denigrate me for what you perceive as MY "speculating"? Shouldn't speculation be wrong for both sides in a debate, or right? In this case you're arguing that it's okay for you but not for me. What an INCREDIBLY closed mind. -----Original Message----- From: Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Lets call time before the big bang as BBB. So what was around 1 billion > years BBB? > ***Time was created at the beginning of the big bang, so asking what happened a billion years before time was created is like asking "what's the difference between a duck"? It is useless. Like I said, diminishing returns. > > If we choose to believe that time has been passing forever > ***This ain't scientific inquiry any more. If we choose to believe.... that unicorns poop skittles then we'll need more dentists. > then there would be plenty of time for life to develop during the past. > There is sufficient evidence that everything we see today was produced > during and after the assumed big bang, but what if time itself was slowed > down at the initialization of the big bang such that an infinite amount of > it has passed since that zero point. > ***And what if time is just an illusion, you aint here and I aint here, we're all just plugged into a matrix to generate electricity. Maybe it's fun for you to think like that but it is a waste of time. Like I said, diminishing returns. > > Our measurement techniques and assumptions lead us to believe that 13+ odd > billion years has elapsed, but what if we are wrong? > ***Then maybe 14 billion years have elapsed, but not 500trilliontrillion years. > According to relativity, immense mass concentration slows down the rate > of time passage > ***In order for your theory to be true, it would have to stop the rate of time passage. The entire mass of the known universe wouldn't even be near close enough to stop it. > and it is difficult to imagine a more dense concentration than that of the > initial big bang mass of the entire known universe. > ***Then imagine something even more dense that CREATED it, spoke it into existence, as He has claimed to do. > > So, if an infinite amount of time has passed since the big bang there is > no concern about how long it might take life to take form. > ***Other than the fact that your supposition is baloney, it's fun to think this way. And a waste of time. BTW, you're still arguing on this side of the big bang, not a billion years "before" it. > There is also no need to be concerned about what was before the big band > since that was an infinite amount of time ago. In this scenario we take > advantage of the behavior of infinite processes. > ***Then why did you bring it up earlier? > > To expand on this idea. Perhaps the present assumption of a period of > universal inflation is really just > ***really just a buncha baloney. > a patch to make the time frames fit into our best guess for the age of > the universe. Our perception of the rate at which time passes is > established by the world around us and ensures that we will find it > difficult to imagine a universe of infinite time duration. The same can be > said of our perception of an infinite space. With the proposition I am > outlining above, both of these dimensions are allowed to be unbounded and > can fit into our observations. > ***But they DON'T fit into our observations. > > I make no claim that this idea is original since the principle seems so > simple, and I personally tend to consider it open minded thinking. > ***Of COURSE you consider it open minded thinking. And no doubt you'd consider other options to be closed minded thinking. That's because you disagree with the end result. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 2:24 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. > > > > > >My question is about the metaphysics of > >where/how/what "heaven" was before creation. > >***Well, I answered your original > >question. Now you want to expand it into areas > >where I have diminishing interest. There's > >basically no scientific (and probably very > >little spiritual) value in such a discussion. > > Contrariwise : pre-big-bang is one of the hottest areas of physics right now. > > >
