Birds falling dead from the sky… It’s just that time…
2 Likes
I am favouring the renewed theories about the Big Bounce, which apparently doesn’t invoke the break down of physics at Planck time like the Big Bang insists. One of Frank Turok’s associates Anna Ijjas has modelled a scenario where the universe does not crush down into a dense singularity squeezing the bejesus out of all particles and flattening time and space to nothing, and where the laws of physics might not be shredded under that enormous pressure.
Apparently Ijjas’s idea concerning the Big Bounce hypothesis answers a lot of questions the Big Bang creates itself but cant answer. Roger Penrose is very supportive of the Bounce and Sean Carroll is just sceptical for the moment.
The upshot is, and why I am really fond of Ijjas’ idea, is that if there wasn’t a Big Bang then that puts paid to the whole idea that the universe had a beginning, a demand for light, and all the theist baggage that goes with it. The universe may well have been undergoing infinite numbers of deflations and inflations according to the Bounce and so time and space have existed forever. In short there may not have been a Creation, a Big Bang or the pulling of a universe out of a deity’s hat. It also justifies Lemaitre’s warning to his Pope not to conflate his own mathematical “cosmic seed” theory, aka the Big Bang, with a creative act of their shared god because scientific hypotheses can easily be superseded and replaced with something quite different when new information is made available and there is a rich supply of new information now available.
Regardless of all the above the OP will still insist that because “1+1 = 2” would always exist as an abstract, symbolic idea, even if C19 killed off all mankind and every single one of our precious, precocious, little brains, but it would still not prove the existence of a god unless you really, really wanted it to.
For more on the Big Bounce I am only supplying this link for this old Quantamagazine article. Anyone interested in following it up for themselves can follow further links from names and references in it.
I’ve better things to do…got to clean my cage out…its that time of year…where does the time go?..black holes?..makes me think of my cage…
My guano doesn’t look after itself you know.
2 Likes
I will only say I’ve always been squawking offended by the Dead Parrot sketch. It ruffles my feathers dreadfully.
Doesn’t it run in opposition to the fact that the universe expansion is speeding up? If it is going to bounce, it has to slow down, stop, and then reverse at some point. Not continue speeding up for 13.6 billion years… Isn’t that a problem for any theory suggesting a bounce?
I agree, the discovery that the universe is accelerating in it’s expansion does throw a monkey wrench into that proposition. But we have not determined the fate of this universe. Maybe the acceleration of expansion does diminish, maybe contraction eventually occurs. There are major questions physicists wrestle with. At present our knowledge is incomplete, and we may never be able to find the answers.
Well, at least our speculations are based on rational thought and observations, unlike the metaphysical babble the OP is spouting.
That is dreadful. Here, let me play some music to cheer you up.
2 Likes
AND my optimistic smilingbirdfood… who started “bouncing” the ball?
Hahahahahaha!
2 Likes
Thanks for that, such a cool Cockatoo with killer moves. It restores my hopes for the
future of Avianity…I wish we were still dinosaurs…uppity apes.
As it is cawed in Roots 1:1, “T’was the Great White Celestial Cockatoo, who immensely tired of playing on His Eternal Swing and pecking at his Infinite Mirror, peering into the darkness that was His Covered Cage, screeched “Farrhhhk, this is boring!” And yay, verily, forsooth, He beginneth to bounceth. And it was good.”
There endeth the squawk.
2 Likes
Oh patience, patience, my hirsute hominoid. Its only been 13.6 billion years, lets give the universe some elbow room and time. After all it must have been a pretty substantial Bounce to get us going, just as powerful as the Bang but without the Planck Time Mess. Above all else we have an abundance of time and stacks of space. You’re like backseat kiddies, “Are we there yet? Are we there?” My guess is that we will eventually begin to slow, stop and recede… if we don’t first bounce off the glass wall of some infinitely large snow globe.
Pushy impatient simians. You haven’t changed since the infernal Asteroid knocked us avians off our Saurian perch and ever since you lot have been racing around impatient to get things done bitching about how slow the Universe is. Back on your branches and swings monkeys, we’re in for the Long Haul. We will see.
2 Likes
In English (?): John 1:1 “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God”
Or have I gone and gotten all confused again?
He likes to misuse words in an apparent attempt to show he knows that of which he speaks, when he clearly does not.
I’m reminded of another bit of scripture*** : 1 Corinthians 13:1 “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”(KJV)
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
*** Of course that’s the wonderful thing about the Bible, one can find justification of just about anything, from incest, to slavery to genocide to predicting the end of the world (regularly updated)
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
White; Last night I was watching a Youtube clip with Chris Hitchens, Bill Maher and a couple of others, including a Hindu.
They quoted some stats; That 43% of US believers change their religious denomination at least once.
That only 37% of US JW’s remain in that church into adulthood.
Sorry have been unable to find the clip again. Did find some great a bits where Hitchens slaps down arrogant talking head Bill Maher.
1 Like
This seems like a lot depends upon IFs . . . . . If ‘this and if this’ or if ‘the other’, then something else follows. But what if . . . . . all those IFs are ‘red herrings’, (false pathways to understanding)?
If find no reason to believe this, nessahanalita. There is no credible evidence that the mathematical proportions § simply have to be via “god” ‡ and nobody else. If by ‘nobody’ else, you mean it is all due to some purely natural reasons, then OK. It need not have been anybody, but rather some brute natural fact, (maybe). So the point you make, nessahanalita, seems like a dud, to me.
{§ for proportions, I’d have put relationships}.
{‡ you do not attempt to define what this thing god is - not that I can detect, nessahanalita.
Using the words ‘nobody’ and ‘nobody else’, effectively poisons the well, meaning that it must have been a ‘body’, (ie. a certain somebody, and not somebody else, implying that you’ve done a reductio ad absurdum . . . but you haven’t). Whilst it may have been down to nobody, it may have some other explanation than any “body”, (ie. not any someone at all).
What this says is that the real answer is: “WE DON’T KNOW”, - assuredly we do not know, with the certainty you seem give us, nessahanalita.
Anyway, cheers,
Mutorc
So the authors another drive by, quelle surprise.
Oh, I think he will be back. He struggles to keep his opinions to himself. He has written several excruciatingly poor (but often quoted by the incel and “downtrodden male”) community self published tomes. I have come across him before. A bit odd, was off with a Coptic Gnostic christian tangent so I found out. Assuming this is the same geezer.
I think he still uses google translate.
1 Like
So he likes to preach rather than debate. That might help explain how someone manages to preserve such woeful ideas and beliefs, by refusing to address criticisms of them.
1 Like
Well you can’t say that. When you throw a die, it can land on any of 6 faces, it was not determined.
The forces, math or anything that created the universe may also be random and if anything is random then it is not necessary that it contain information about future.
So something that created universe may not know the math and it’s proportions to create it.
It looks to you that information should be there if something is being created but it is not always.
Die doesn’t know where it lands so maybe not universe.
There are no mathematical proportions that 'govern" the Cosmos. You are delusional. We have observed the cosmos and ascribed mathematical proportions to it, that have offered us some margin of reasonable consistency.
You are way out on a limb with that stupid comment.
1 Like
What? I don’t understand that. I guess it’s mean to seem deep. 
I think like many theists the author views strident unevidenced remarks as profound. Nothing seems to be more anathema to them than the humility of someone admitting we don’t know something, without any woo woo or mystery attached.
3 Likes
@aketo Fuck…will you stop speaking Latin? You are making me feel dumber than I already am…and that’s a pretty good level of dumb, mind you! LMAO! 
1 Like