adepeter2027:
When guru plenty pass dullard, confusion sets in

Lol

AgentOfAllah:

It stopped being a discussion when you evaded my questions with unintelligible obfuscations, and you made it a quarrel the moment you unjustifiably resorted to ad hominems.


Read your shitty comment which I quoted again.


Who gives a fvck about your cussing? You were simply rude in attacking my knowledge and calling my explanation crap without justification. And to make matters worse, you then quote a link which explained exactly what I explained, meaning you weren't even sure about the substance of your own position.
If you haven't picked up a textbook in 17 years, then pick one up and be sure of your facts before you start making nonsensical claims!


No, you really shouldn't have talked about subjects you knew nothing about in the first place. Quantum physicist emeritus my arse!

Why are you getting worked up all of a sudden? In your egotistical way you talk down and insult peoples posts at will and I know because you have done it to me often. I never knew you couldn't take what you dish out.

Knowledge is not your exclusive right and I am sure this awakening suddenly made you irritable and instead of speaking properly and intelligently towards supersystemsnig you simply want to attack his person which is totally horrible.

You can now retort in your usual egotistical rude manner. Nothing new there.

supersystemsnig:
If you can't pick up, pick a brick, i expressed my points, researched and dug up truths and all pointed to all i shared...It's a pity, we can't peaceably interact and happily discuss,anyway i'm just an uneducated bread seller,so no beefs...

You are wrong. The Big Bang can't be explained by Chemical reactions similar to nuclear reactions. Not, it's a flawed way of seeing it. You have not been to an astronomy class, and perhaps, you got most things from text. Well, they are more to it than you read. Many do not know that the singularity which the Big Bang Theory started is just a mathematical expression.

Big Bang is a theory, and it's predictions have been seen to be true, yet, it has its own weakness.

Traditional Big Bang theory posits that our universe began with a singularity — a point of infinite density and temperature whose nature is difficult for our minds to grasp. However, this may not accurately reflect reality, researchers say, because the singularity idea is based on Einstein's theory of general relativity .

At that point, they believe, the universe underwent an extremely brief and dramatic period of inflation, expanding faster than the speed of light. It doubled in size perhaps 100 times or more, all within the span of a few tiny fractions of a second.

The bold thus make null and void your comparison of the point of inflation to nuclear activities. You need to be cautious at your use of some distinct words in talking about Big Bang.

Lastly, chemist have no say at all in the explanation of the Big Bang

supersystemsnig:



Lol @ Like I said, I am a B.Sc holder and I can't speak authoritatively. My brother i hold just a secondary degree...Plz chill

Anyway, the big bang is proven, till now there's an after echo, damn you've not researched it? I'll search and share links with you in the coming days... The beginning of the universe was more geochemical reactions and will be difficult to explain through plain Physics alone, for example, i explained binding energy, he energy that keeps a nuclei together, and the energy that breaks it, half life, all of these were the seriesof events that took place before time, before time, everything was just floating inertia, bro....that required an ignition point..Read my earlier comments, i commented on these theories at great depth...


Brov, you know they say we are ( un.... ) and ( ..... ) niggas, and as such i'm just doing my best ni...


Peace

This video echoes your words perfectly. Watch it if you have the time and data. It's a 5min video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA

supersystemsnig:


Thanks. Pardon me...

Finding God after 22 years of search thru science annoys me each time i remember the experiences...I wasted 22 years of my life i could have spent knowing this wonderful creator without the tedious search...Anyway, the knowledge from those experiences remains unwasted sha, i'm consoled.....The first and only time i've knelt and submitted to a higher entity remains to Him, My Maker, My keeper, My right arm, the one that teaches me and helps me understand, The one that patiently watches and pushes us further....Anyone that says no God, needs to search deeper...

may God strengthen and ground you more.

mrphysics:

You are wrong. The Big Bang can't be explained by Chemical reactions similar to nuclear reactions. Not, it's a flawed way of seeing it. You have not been to an astronomy class, and perhaps, you got most things from text. Well, they are more to it than you read. Many do not know that the singularity which the Big Bang Theory started is just a mathematical expression.

Big Bang is a theory, and it's predictions have been seen to be true, yet, it has its own weakness.

Traditional Big Bang theory posits that our universe began with a singularity — a point of infinite density and temperature whose nature is difficult for our minds to grasp. However, this may not accurately reflect reality, researchers say, because the singularity idea is based on Einstein's theory of general relativity .

At that point, they believe, the universe underwent an extremely brief and dramatic period of inflation, expanding faster than the speed of light. It doubled in size perhaps 100 times or more, all within the span of a few tiny fractions of a second.

The bold thus make null and void your comparison of the point of inflation to nuclear activities. You need to be cautious at your use of some distinct words in talking about Big Bang.

Lastly, chemist have no say at all in the explanation of the Big Bang

My brov @ Lastly, chemist have no say at all in the explanation of the Big Bang....Let's not go here biko Nu...


Let's talk something else abeg...Been at this for over four hours now...I'm ph.ken tired...Read all i shared earlier, i've explained everything explicitly....

butterflyl1on:


may God strengthen and ground you more.

Amen, few years more and we will be out...A splurge is coming and He's going to come out and speak in the presence of the whole world, just a few years from now..The time of this generation is close...very very close..Purpose is calling forth what is waiting for this generation...Just in a few years, the world will see it...Asia will be covered, Europe will be flooded, His presence will cover the earth...Look out for it..It's an exciting time to be alive...Cures to diseases are coming...AIDS, Alzheimer, various forms of cancer, the next crude oil etc...His illuminating presence is bringing answers to long existing questions, tell people with issues to be patient,His massive presence is coming, and His coming with His bag of goodies...

I do like you already!

mrphysics:

You are right if and only if you are talking about the sun or earth. Basically they is no difference between the sun and the earth. The activities going on at the core or the earth is similar to the one happening in the sun. All are nuclear reactions.

While it is true that a small amount of nuclear reactions occur at the core of the earth, it is not quite the same as that of the sun's. The type of reaction at the earth's core is fission, whereas the suns reaction is fusion. The earth's core is mostly an alloy of iron and nickel in solid and liquid forms. As you may know, all heavy elements from iron onwards cannot spontaneously undergo nuclear fusion. Not even in the sun. This is because the nucleon binding energies of the subsequent product of fusion will be larger than the binding energies of the individual parts. Earth gets a significant amount of heat from nuclear reactions, no doubt, but these are just residual elements undergoing radioactive decay.

But when you come to the beginning of things, the universe, then I won't agree with you that it started through nuclear reactions. Lol. I might be wrong at this anyway, but I am sure that energy, time, and densities were at infinity during Big Bang.
Atoms and other subatomic particles were formed only after Big Bang (hope I am correct).

You are right! Although, it is not exactly that subatomic particles didn't exist. More accurately, they popped in and out of existence in matter-antimatter peers. But atoms most definitely formed after the Big Bang.

If something can come out of nothing, then you wonder what is actually nothing. lol. Nothing and infinity are just mathematical words, they surely don't exist

Agreed!

butterflyl1on:


This video echoes your words perfectly. Watch it if you have the time and data. It's a 5min video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA

Thanks for uploading my arms... I've explained this scientifically clearly, all that's needed is for folks to spend time and read...its not easy repeating

This thread is losing its luster now that a praise singer is gracing it

supersystemsnig:





My brov @ Lastly, chemist have no say at all in the explanation of the Big Bang....Let's not go here biko Nu...


Let's talk something else abeg...Been at this for over four hours now...I'm ph.ken tired...Read all i shared earlier, i've explained everything explicitly....

Yeah I followed your point and you tried anyway.

Point is, some physicist believe that Big Bang never happened. Lol. What they believe is Big Bang Cosmology.

Chemistry is limited to the beginning of universe. Physicist forms chemistry. You don't give a Nobel Prize in chemistry first. You do it in physics. The universe is governed by the General Theory of relativity. You must understand that these things are theories, mathematical and no one experienced it. But their features make us to believe they were true.

We are all in Big Bang and it keeps happening on us. The universe is expanding, creating new spaces.

I think I was supposed to be seeing a philosophical understanding of nothing and something.

Using nuclear reaction that happened after Big Bang to explain Big Bang is somewhat confusing.

mrphysics:

Those who are not physicists make the mistake of speaking confidently about it. I can't, I would rather learn than kill a subject that I am loyal to.

This is the most beautiful remark I've read today, especially the emboldened! I wish more people were like you.

AgentOfAllah:
I do like you already!

While it is true that a small amount of nuclear reactions occur at the core of the earth, it is not quite the same as that of the sun's. The type of reaction at the earth's core is fission, whereas the suns reaction is fusion. The earth's core is mostly an alloy of iron and nickel in solid and liquid forms. As you may know, all heavy elements from iron onwards cannot spontaneously undergo nuclear fusion. Not even in the sun. This is because the nucleon binding energies of the subsequent product of fusion will be larger than the binding energies of the individual parts. Earth gets a significant amount of heat from nuclear reactions, no doubt, but these are just residual elements undergoing radioactive decay.


You are right! Although, it is not exactly that subatomic particles didn't exist. More accurately, they popped in and out of existence in matter-antimatter peers. But atoms most definitely formed after the Big Bang.


Agreed!

Yeah. All true. I was just trying to explain that nuclear reactions that started after Big Bang can't start a Big Bang. I have not in my reading on Big Bang seen it being associated with nuclear reactions.

Yes, it is true that atoms are formed after Big Bang. It took time for even stars to be formed after Big Bang.

I have forgotten but I think the sun releases some ironic materials to the earth. That validates your point that irons and heavy elements don't undergo nuclear fusion.

mrphysics:

You are wrong. The Big Bang can't be explained by Chemical reactions similar to nuclear reactions. Not, it's a flawed way of seeing it. You have not been to an astronomy class, and perhaps, you got most things from text. Well, they are more to it than you read. Many do not know that the singularity which the Big Bang Theory started is just a mathematical expression.

Big Bang is a theory, and it's predictions have been seen to be true, yet, it has its own weakness.

Traditional Big Bang theory posits that our universe began with a singularity — a point of infinite density and temperature whose nature is difficult for our minds to grasp. However, this may not accurately reflect reality, researchers say, because the singularity idea is based on Einstein's theory of general relativity .

At that point, they believe, the universe underwent an extremely brief and dramatic period of inflation, expanding faster than the speed of light. It doubled in size perhaps 100 times or more, all within the span of a few tiny fractions of a second.

The bold thus make null and void your comparison of the point of inflation to nuclear activities. You need to be cautious at your use of some distinct words in talking about Big Bang.

Lastly, chemist have no say at all in the explanation of the Big Bang

Lol @ You have not been to an astronomy class, and perhaps, you got most things from text. Well, they are more to it than you read. Many do not know that the singularity which the Big Bang Theory started is just a mathematical expression. You're so so wrong, Astronomy na my forte booby...



At that point, they believe, the universe underwent an extremely brief and dramatic period of inflation, expanding faster than the speed of light. It doubled in size perhaps 100 times or more, all within the span of a few tiny fractions of a second.@ This yes, na, bro you came in mid way, read all i've been writing on na..this is what i expressed explicitly throughout this thread....read everything i shared first

mrphysics:

Yeah I followed your point and you tried anyway.

Point is, some physicist believe that Big Bang never happened. Lol. What they believe is Big Bang Cosmology.

Chemistry is limited to the beginning of universe. Physicist forms chemistry. You don't give a Nobel Prize in chemistry first. You do it in physics. The universe is governed by the General Theory of relativity. You must understand that these things are theories, mathematical and no one experienced it. But their features make us to believe they were true.

We are all in Big Bang and it keeps happening on us. The universe is expanding, creating new spaces.

I think I was supposed to be seeing a philosophical understanding of nothing and something.

Using nuclear reaction that happened after Big Bang to explain Big Bang is somewhat confusing.

Bros your posture is that of a fighter...Why not read all the comments i shared and see if its different what what you're typing first?


If having a nobel prize is what it takes to get your attention, then give me a few more years...As you don dey take style complete the ones that called us names


I am tired, im exhausted

Praise singers are calling others praise singers

I wonder what they were when they called for a certain agent to grace this thread and so glowingly said how they "like" how he makes scientific submissions.

Awon groupie

SORRY GUYS FATIGUE

supersystemsnig:



Bros your posture is that of a fighter...Why not read all the comments i shared and see if its different what what you're typing first?


If having a nobel prize is what it takes to get your attention, then give me a few more years...As you don dey take style complete the ones that called us names


I am tired, im exhausted

Sorry, I didn't know you were saying the same thing with me. Lol. I just saw the thread started with nothing and something Theory. So I jumped to see how it's progressing as the subject will surely change through discussions

vaxx:
I am walking on two premises, if you are really following me..one on the contegency and the other on probability....

Natural philosophy is the most accepted means of thruth...therefore we can't have a discussion without it. Though I agree it has limitations...


philosophy is the eye glass of natural philosophy... An intelligent natural philosopher must work under the perspective of mainstream philosophy... Meaning scientists need to work with a particular attitude towards or way of regarding something by using sophia(wisdom)

So , lets treat your alternative one by one according to how you list them. Using both natural philosophy and mainstream philosophy...


..1 it can't be a lizard... A lizard isn't intelligent enough to create a universe like ours..

A lizard can not create a being more intelligent than it(human)

2...multi intelligent being can't be possible, it will lead to confusion and disagreement.... One may wish to create a universe where there will be no darkness and another may wish to have a universe with multiple of brightness... This will lead to serious chaos and anarchy....


3 the creator can't transform himself to a physical universe.. Why?

he will be subjected to the same universe theory he created and that will render the transformation useless.. he is external

4 the creator can not die.. Why?


He is not a contingent being.... He is a Necessary things and a neccasry thing cannot either come to be, nor cease to be. Only contingent things, like us, do that...


Your alternative will not be possible..




So should i post you my hypothesis base on the law of probability





1

I like this. Supersystemsnig, sonofAllah, and other guys, let's focus it this way.

I am a Christian, and I am convinced through my personal experience and beliefs that God exists. I have listened to atheists on the subject matter, and I am still convinced they are wrong.

Most of them base their belief on a doctrine and not the reality on ground. They may be right, but I think they are wrong. But I need more of this.

sonofAllah, are you an atheist? I have one as a friend. I would like to hear your view

mrphysics:

Sorry, I didn't know you were saying the same thing with me. Lol. I just saw the thread started with nothing and something Theory. So I jumped to see how it's progressing as the subject will surely change through discussions

I'll get my nobel prize in medicine and chemistry, and then we'll continue the discuss then...Bro you're a scientisit, always read the line first..anyways things can be explained from diverse planes, a geochemist will see things thru his/her plane, a chemist, a physcist, the universe has so many stories and they all can reflect similar truths but different purposes, but in the end, we are have whether we like it or not have proven that all of this is connected to a creator, if notis'nt a big bang what it is? a big bang, an echo, and then isn't an echo the result of an action? I will shock the world that more than a big abang even happened..i no get power again, i don tire bro

budaatum:

That's not so. Einstein needn't have bothered. Newton worked pretty well. But he did, so Relativity appeared.

Arrogance is the only reason we would think we know it all. There's always so much more we don't know yet. Laziness, is an insufficient reason to stop.


Claiming I believe something hardly shows I have exhausted the topic. Let me illustrate.

If I sat in the living room and said, "I believe it is raining outside". You could ask, " are you sure?" And if I'm not, I can get off the chair and look out the window to check.

Say, the window has frosted glass so I can't see out well, I may return and say, "I think so" , to which you may ask, " Are you sure".

So I get up again, go out the door and rain pours on my head. I would return and say, "It is raining outside, damn it! It effing pissed down on my head, and if you don't bloody believe me, go out and check!"

I am afraid the believer is just making things up. The believer doesn't really have a clue.

Is it not raining outside?

this isnt true,scientific verifiable truth do not need further truth again....not laziness... It is no more truth again... Take for example water molecules consist of oxygen atom and 2 hydrogen atoms...which further prove do scientist need again


If the explanation is well satisfy, no need for further explanations...


Beliefs have underlining connotations with knowledge, faith, trust and confidence..

And I explained to you this knowledge is derived from sensitivity, experience and perciveness.. Can all this be clueless? Scratch it...

With your analogy...for me to say i belive is rainy outside, i must have sense it, percived it and experience how it is...if not it is not a belive it is assumption...


I belive it is rainy outside becuse i sense the room temperature is much lower, I perceive the weather conditions is cold because whenever it wanted to rain ,the room enviroment is always cold....

mrphysics:

Yeah. All true. I was just trying to explain that nuclear reactions that started after Big Bang can't start a Big Bang. I have not in my reading on Big Bang seen it being associated with nuclear reactions.

That's right! Like you have explained, the big bang predates the formation of any atomic nucleus, so it is quite dumb to suggest it originated as a result of nuclear fusion.

I have forgotten but I think the sun releases some ironic materials to the earth. That validates your point that irons and heavy elements don't undergo nuclear fusion.

Some ionic, not ironic materials do make it to the earth from all over the universe, not just from the sun. However, the earth acquired its iron during the formation of the solar system. The iron on earth probably came from the same interstellar cloud whence came the sun's raw material.

mrphysics:

I like this. Supersystemsnig, sonofAllah, and other guys, let's focus it this way.

I am a Christian, and I am convinced through my personal experience and beliefs that God exists. I have listened to atheists on the subject matter, and I am still convinced they are wrong.

Most of them base their belief on a doctrine and not the reality on ground. They may be right, but I think they are wrong. But I need more of this.

sonofAllah, are you an atheist? I have one as a friend. I would like to hear your view

We don't need proofs to know God exists, all you need is Find Him...He wants to be found, He sits in darkness and make darkness is cover...From the way beyond, He stretches His gaze and looks. He is not far from those who seek Him more than precious silver..To find God, you don't need people, kneel down and pray if you exist show You to Me...Simple....and He will make Himself more visible thru your daily life interactions and processes, infact, he begins to link you with people that have His knowledge, when this begins to occu,r he is positioning you to become more receptive and open when He comes in " realer " or " clearer " terms, the Lord roams the earth every second, Just kneel down and cry to Him saying i've heard you exist, show me your glory, prove to me You exist...and you will see your life path connected day by day to a point where He will be unvieled to you..I've been there

AgentOfAllah:

It stopped being a discussion when you evaded my questions with unintelligible obfuscations, and you made it a quarrel the moment you unjustifiably resorted to ad hominems.


Read your shitty comment which I quoted again.


Who gives a fvck about your cussing? You were simply rude in attacking my knowledge and calling my explanation crap without justification. And to make matters worse, you then quote a link which explained exactly what I explained, meaning you weren't even sure about the substance of your own position.
If you haven't picked up a textbook in 17 years, then pick one up and be sure of your facts before you start making nonsensical claims!


No, you really shouldn't have talked about subjects you knew nothing about in the first place. Quantum physicist emeritus my arse!

can I say sorry on his behalf...you have both contributed positively to this thread.......if you permit me ....sorry bro

vaxx:
I am walking on two premises, if you are really following me..one on the contegency and the other on probability....

Natural philosophy is the most accepted means of thruth...therefore we can't have a discussion without it. Though I agree it has limitations...


philosophy is the eye glass of natural philosophy... An intelligent natural philosopher must work under the perspective of mainstream philosophy... Meaning scientists need to work with a particular attitude towards or way of regarding something by using sophia(wisdom)

So , lets treat your alternative one by one according to how you list them. Using both natural philosophy and mainstream philosophy...


..1 it can't be a lizard... A lizard isn't intelligent enough to create a universe like ours..

A lizard can not create a being more intelligent than it(human)

2...multi intelligent being can't be possible, it will lead to confusion and disagreement.... One may wish to create a universe where there will be no darkness and another may wish to have a universe with multiple of brightness... This will lead to serious chaos and anarchy....


3 the creator can't transform himself to a physical universe.. Why?

he will be subjected to the same universe theory he created and that will render the transformation useless.. he is external

4 the creator can not die.. Why?


He is not a contingent being.... He is a Necessary things and a neccasry thing cannot either come to be, nor cease to be. Only contingent things, like us, do that...


Your alternative will not be possible..




So should i post you my hypothesis base on the law of probability





1

Nothing philosophically means non existence physically and metaphysically . It is impossible for something to come from nothing (nihilo ex nihil fit ) since nothing is casually impotent - it can't cause anything . That means for something to begin to exist , it must have a cause and what that begins to exist is contingent .

But there is a problem , infinite regress of causes . We have to understand that contingent things rely on other things for their existence and it is possible for them not to exist , therefore it is impossible to have a chain of contingent things - if this is so , then nothing would exist ; but we have something . Therefore , the corollary is to affirm the existence of non-contingent causally potent thing . This non-contingent casually potent thing is the First Cause or God .

mrphysics:

I like this. Supersystemsnig, sonofAllah, and other guys, let's focus it this way.

I am a Christian, and I am convinced through my personal experience and beliefs that God exists. I have listened to atheists on the subject matter, and I am still convinced they are wrong.

Most of them base their belief on a doctrine and not the reality on ground. They may be right, but I think they are wrong. But I need more of this.

sonofAllah, are you an atheist? I have one as a friend. I would like to hear your view

I imagine it's me you've referred to as SonOfAllah? Does my moniker make you uncomfortable?
Yes, I'm an atheist, but I doubt my atheism is based on any doctrine. If anything, it's based on the lack of one.

AgentOfAllah:

I imagine it's me you've referred to as SonOfAllah? Does my moniker make you uncomfortable?
Yes, I'm an atheist, but I doubt my atheism is based on any doctrine. If anything, it's based on the lack of one.

Lol. Sorry, I wasn't that observant.

Alright @your belief. Everything about God personal. Miracles can't be mass produced so you can't physically prove the existence of God to anyone. I think its the reason he made Himself God.

Wishing you all the best.

KingEbukasBlog:



Nothing philosophically means non existence physically and metaphysically . It is impossible for something to come from nothing (nihilo ex nihil fit ) since nothing is casually impotent - it can't cause anything . That means for something to begin to exist , it must have a cause and what that begins to exist is contingent .

But there is a problem , infinite regress of causes . We have to understand that contingent things rely on other things for their existence and it is possible for them not to exist , therefore it is impossible to have a chain of contingent things - if this is so , then nothing would exist ; but we have something . Therefore , the corollary is to affirm the existence of non-contingent causally potent thing . This non-contingent casually potent thing is the First Cause or God .

@ It is impossible for something to come from nothing (nihilo ex nihil fit ) since nothing is casually impotent - it can't cause anything . T...flawed.. this simply means atoms are inexistent, if this holds water

KingEbukasBlog:



Nothing philosophically means non existence physically and metaphysically . It is impossible for something to come from nothing (nihilo ex nihil fit ) since nothing is casually impotent - it can't cause anything . That means for something to begin to exist , it must have a cause and what that begins to exist is contingent .

But there is a problem , infinite regress of causes . We have to understand that contingent things rely on other things for their existence and it is possible for them not to exist , therefore it is impossible to have a chain of contingent things - if this is so , then nothing would exist ; but we have something . Therefore , the corollary is to affirm the existence of non-contingent causally potent thing . This non-contingent casually potent thing is the First Cause or God .

we are both in agreement..

vaxx:
we are both in agreement..

If something must exist then it must come from something, hence nothing doesn't exist...cause even in dark holes, vibration of particles exist...In fact, vibration of energy exists throughout the universe, hence matter and energy is in continuous flow...So why, nothing?Nothing is something... and something comes from something and not nothing..

vaxx:
can I say sorry in his behalf...you have both contributed positively to this thread.......if you permit me ....sorry bro

No, you shouldn't! Listen, I appreciate your conciliatory intervention, I really do! But you have not wronged me, so you should not apologise on anyone's behalf...lol. If it makes you feel any better, I really don't expect him to apologise either. My goal was really just to deflate his self-congratulatory hubris. He's desperate to be identified as a quantum physicist and chemist because it massages his fragile ego, but he is neither. Any physicist who reads his post will quickly see right through his BS.

Anyway, thanks!

supersystemsnig:



If something must exist then it must come from something, hence nothing doesn't exist...cause even in dark holes, vibration of particles exist...In fact, vibration of energy exists throughout the universe, hence matter and energy is in continuous flow...So why, nothing?Nothing is something... and something comes from something and not nothing..

which we means from a process to process...

I also like this principle... It did not excape God....