Re: Talk about "Fucking the Troops Around"

"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:474d14bd$0$4638$ec3e2dad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tom Kunich wrote:
I suggest that you don't have any clue whatsoever

I suggest you don't have any clue about the mathematics
of the big bang.

And I suggest you don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about. Tell me - the theory of the Big Bang tells us that the universe was created out of nothing. And also it is interesting that the mathematics stops working before 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang so that there's no way to actually analyze what happened.

So you're willing to believe that somehow everything was created out of nothing at all but not that God created everything out of nothing at all. Interesting.

And of course the further we can see out into the universe the MORE we're seeing. The Big Bang relies on the idea that we can see where the ENDS of the universe are and hence we can calculate the amount of time the universe has been here. Sorry - if all the local galaxies locally were in one spot a couple of billion years ago that couldn't have been a THE Big Bang since the furthest stuff didn't have time to get that far in that amount of time. And of course you couldn't see the ends of the universe anyway since the universe is theoretically unlimited.

And, say, why is it that the mathematics of nuclear fusion tell us that there is NO favoritism between forming protons and antiprotons, electrons or positrons. Since you seem to have such a tight grasp on the mathematics of creation please explain how any matter can be here if there's an equal amount of antimatter formed at the same time which would in the first few seconds of creation annihilate itself?

Tell me, did it ever occur to you that if there was any deviation by as much as one part in 10^-100 in any of the universal constants that the universe could never have formed? How do these Big Bang mathematics of yours explain how there could be almost precisely the correct number of electrons for the numbers of protons? The correct numbers of neutrons should interest you too if you have any idea what that means.

I get a laugh out of people like you. You can somehow believe that String Theory which by it's very nature could never been verified is believable. You can believe that there are subatomic particles that seem to form in ever increasing numbers.

While I was working on atomic accelerators I remember several physicists arguing that as long as you continue to increase energy in the accelerator you'd continue to find newer and smaller and more energetic particles. And strangely enough - they did. Who knew?


.

Loading