Cosmology at the threshold of encountering the reality

The initiator of this thread, started nothing more than his usual religiously driven anti science rants, and you decided to give him support.Nothing more, nothing less.
Plus your record here for your own pseudoscience rants also are similarly driven.
If the cap fits, wear it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course you don't need to accept anything I am peddling! But I'm not really peddling anything, simply stating what is and what has been evidenced through the scientific method via experimentations and observations.
That's how science works.

I have no anti religious behaviour. I really don't give a flying f*%$ one way or the other. I generally do not enter the religious threads, except for one time yesterday

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I don't walk into a church on a Sunday, preaching how we are all star stuff.
What I do do though, is expose the stupid anti science rants that religiously driven nuts in general, try and use to invalidate and dride science and the scientific method.
You proved that yesterday...the god admitted to it the other day.
People that have a beef against science, or believe they have a new theory or some other evidence that invalidates present theory, if they are fair dinkum, would via the scientific method, present their thoughts and/or a proper reviewed scientific paper. Mostly they don't. Because they can't. They have nothing in general, except in some cases, a religiously driven agenda, that sees them ranting and raving against science, to gain some warm inner glow feeling, and satisfaction with themselves.
If I have exposed that on one or two occasions, I'm rather pleased.

I've been in this thread from the beginning. You popped in to support the god.
You were also exposed, as your other nonsensical threads exposed you.
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Again, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen [or stay in the religious forum]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

14,000.000.000 years allows for Universal evolution.
6.000 years does not.

And really, the only argument you have left is God as the original cause. But you can't prove it.
My only argument is the original cause was a mathematical function. But I can't prove it.
Make of that what you will.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe the proverb "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" is in need of modification.

To take the metaphor further, and maybe avoid the "piss off" factor the original carries with it, maybe add "... and observe how the cooking is done for a while, before you weigh in with your idea that THIS is how it's done"?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can't and won't argue with that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are dishonest and you are picking my statement incorrectly. I never bring God, in my science argument.

Primarily you are the antimatter of ISIS/Jehadi mania. They bring in God to justify their intolerance, you bring science to justify your intolerance towards the God. People like you can be easily controlled and manipulated, you attempt to show off that by deriding God (calling God as magical pixie) you will be able to establish your pro science approach. That is quite naive and demonstrative of your lack of education. Keep yours and your wife's atheism or theism at your home only, do not blah blah on science forum.

Many of great minds are able to do great science even though they trust in God. So in future please do not childishly deride God and do not deride anyone who has some faith in God, you are 100% justified in deriding people/philosophy if they attempt to push God over science, otherwise do not rant on anti God in almost every post of yours.

In a span of ten hours you crapped on this thread and screwed it up miserably, you cannot claim innocence that so and so started first and you only responded.

 

Write4U;

So both the statements are based on beliefs......How can you say that your belief is superior to his belief?

Its not my case that I agree with him, but you have no qualification to disagree with him, you are just following something to sound cool on science forum, attempting to ingratiate with someone.

"Belief is when someone thinks something is reality when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something.".....This definition applies to both of you.

 

My belief is that Tegmark is correct. If there is a God (TOE), it has to be of a mathematical nature. It must be so or there would only be chaos. Seems logical to me.

I never claimed that my belief is superior, in fact is a reconciliation of philosophy and physical observation.

As to the ad hominem, we all know what that means in debate. Discomfort.

Just because I am an Atheist (just the common variety of secularism), I am certainly not closed to the concept of a causal metaphysical Condition. All I am saying is that it has to be mathematical in Essence.

Does that conflict with the notion of an *Omnipotent Condition (Being)?

 

Tegmark is a huge talent, but a marketing guy too.
IMO neither the multiverse theory makes any sense, nor does his primariness of maths make sense. I wish to adopt that any physical reality (barring consciousness) may be expressed mathematically, but not other way round. You have differing stand on this, I have no problem.

Thats the impression I gathered. Even now you are emphasising the supremacy of your belief, please explain how your belief (as influenced by Tegmark MUH) is a recinciliation of philosophy with physical observation. I will call it reconciliation of maths with physical observations, philosophy plays no role in this.

Agreed. It shows lack of argument on the part of poster.

Whatever you are, is no issue for others. But secularims in common parlance is not associated with theism or atheism. In fact in a secular set up you will have more theist as compared to atheists.

what is that?

 

Pseudoscience or alternative sections apart, but do we have some moderation / checks about inaccuracies being pushed and argued abusively in science section ?

This is the biggest problem results into abuses and then when things become really ugly, you jump in?

Like in my case, Paddoboy more than 4-5 times has pushed his 10 point science on cosmology, thats pure nonsense in science section....I objected him and schmelzer also objected him with argument but he started abusing.....who checks his excellency "free hand messiah of mainstream with popular science acquired knowldege" Mr Paddoboy?

 

All you need to do is back up or support your claims with reputable references and links.
My points in the two tutorials are correct, its as simple as that.

 

I fail to understand how some one on science section can ask for interpretation of mainstream, while simultaneously acting as the defender of mainstream on that point?

A defender must know, what is he defending. This poster wants me to give reference that the volume of a sphere of radius r = 4/3(pi)r^3, this poster wants me to give reference that despite higher absorption of CMBR by BH the BH will evaporate due to HR....its almost like that whenever he asks for references.

 

False argument.You are accusing the person who is defending mainstream science AND backing it up with references for YOUR information, not his.

You ask everyone to prove mainstream science, but fail to support you arguments with refences to *acceptable* alternate viewpoints. Is it not time you provided some links, illustrating why you disagree with mainstream sciemce?

 

I simply ask that you support your alternative view. Nothing more nothing less and a reasonable request.
Saying that all link that refute you are just pop science is just silly and a cop out.

Let me state it again, all BH's will in time [a lot of time] evaporate via HR, if HR is as valid as mainstream think.
That is sensible mainstream thinking. You are unable to support your disagreement with that sensible outcome because no other link supports that rather silly concept.
Your volume of a sphere attempt at derision is a poor attempt, and stems from my figures that I gave as approximations in my two rather excellent tutorials.
They stand as unchallenged, except by yourself.

 

Sorry, you are not following my old arguments with Paddoboy.

I am not talking about alternative point of view, I am talking about interpretation of mainstream science on various points raised between me and Paddoboy.

In one of the arguments I posted that volume of a sphere of radius 2.95 Kms is 107 cubic Kms, Paddoboy questions this and ask for supporting this...there are many such points where his interpretation of mainstream which he argues is incorrect and when correct interpretation is posted, he seeks references?

He is surely defending mainstream, but he does not know what the mainstream is, beyond popular science representation. When cornered he argues, abuses and floods the thread with copy pastes.

 

Write4U.

Now see this evaporation argument.

CMBR is present everywhere with 2.7 K, all stellar BHs are absorbing CMBR in present epoc and their mass is increasing. The emission due to HR (Hawking radiation) is at a much slower rate than CMBR absorption, so resultant effect is increase of mass rather than evaporation.......What reference an educated knowledgeable defender of mainstream would want in this case?

But he is stuck and abuses starts, ideally he should give reference why a stellar BH would evaporate when CMBR(T) > HR (T) or he should claim that in absence of CMBR BH would evaporate as per HR......but that is also not his case.

 

Now that you have peaked my interest. What is the formula you used to arrive at the result in your example?

Can you present this formally in scientific notation?

 

The CMBR is not always going to be at 2.7 K, and our universe is expanding, and nothing is going to last forever in this Universe.Everything has a "use by date" even SMBH's.


http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/quantum/evaporating_bh

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_theory.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe
A supermassive black hole with a mass of 1011 (100 billion) M☉ will evaporate in around 2×1099 years


http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html
EXTRACT:
The Black Hole Age
If protons really do decay, then after about 10^(30) years, black holes will be the only collections of matter which remain. Do they last forever, slowly orbiting each other in the isolated, coalesced galaxies?

No!

Black holes, it turns out, do emit a very, very small amount of radiation. Classically, nothing can escape their gravitational pull, not even light; but the rules of quantum mechanics permit a process by which photons or other elementary particles may -- on very rare occasions -- be emitted from the black hole. This is sometimes called "Hawking radiation." Under ordinary circumstances, it is minimal: the radiation emitted by a black hole of one solar mass corresponds to a temperature of 0.0000001 degrees Kelvin.

Nonetheless, during the Black Hole Age, there is plenty of time for this miniscule amount of radiation to carry away a significant portion of a black hole's mass. Moreover, as a black hole loses mass, its temperature and luminosity rise ... so the process speeds up. Eventually, even the most massive black holes must evaporate due to this radiation.

 

I should tell you the formula since you are learning....http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Volume-of-a-Sphere

Bye Bye...take care.