supersystemsnig:



Thanks you so much, oh you made my day, time is limited.


Now, with over 14,000 Nuclear war heads with over 20 Million Kilotons of power, it will destroy life supporting systems and will push the earth towards almost total destruction. Now, the Nuclear war heads released over Japan has taken over 50 years for signs of recovery with a tiny release of energy compared to the current total number of nuclear war heads.

Let me move further away from nuclear war heads and talk about H-Bomb, The H-Bomb, or energy of the sun as its commonly called, has the same power or touted to have the same burning and scorching energy of the sun, it is been experimented in two countries, France and Germany, and is near perfection, this is the final card and not even nuclear head, as it destroys everything completely...

I practically just showed mathematically that it is impossible for all the nuclear bombs on earth, even if they were hydrogen bombs to even come close to destroying the earth. Destruction of life on earth does not equate to destruction of the earth. These are two different things. The earth probably predates life, and, baring any interplanetory collision, will most definitely out last it.

Now with an end in sight, it is okay to say there must have been a beginning that spans before time, which is why i like to go back to sub-stomic hydrogen molecule.

What is a subatomic hydrogen molecule? A hydrogen molecule is two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded, so how can they be subatomic?

Now for this universe or rather the multi verse to be in its current form, required a sudden burst of energy,matter which is what a fission reaction represents, now because of the highly unstable nature of sub atomic hydrogen molecules, combining them requires extremely high amount of energy, by which once they combine releases massive amount of energy and sets of a nuclear fusion, the aftermath is a continuous chain reaction that leads to the release of new elements, energy and the world as we see it. Infact, this planet is the product of the cooling that took place by just this two sub atomic particles. The entire world does not have the energy to combine them in a repeated manner, why? It requires the exact amount of energy in the sun to combine them, which further stipulates that the genesis has an independent inventor that supplied the force needed for the start to even begin...

To be clear, are you saying that it was nuclear fission that started the universe? If so, that's nonsense with all due respect! You'll find HERE, a brief summary of the origin of atoms. Atoms could not possibly have predated the universe. At such high energies, it was practically impossible for atoms to exist, so your whole explanation is suspicious.

ToZaraWithaZ:
The very fact the you seem to be accusing me of saying otherwise indicates that you never got my point. You obviously didn't see where I pointed out to the other guy that the whole of existence CAN'T be matter. I never argued against this. I asserted that whatever predates the physical universe must be SOMETHING, since nothingness is impossible. Obviously, if the physical universe is material, whatever predates it must have been immaterial. Isn't that what makes the distinction possible in the first place?



A nuclear catastrophe can only destroy the earth at worst. I don't see what brings the universe itself into it. There's no connection. Anyways, the earth wouldn't be destroyed in the sense that it would be reduced to NOTHING - nonexistence. It could only be broken down into tiny fragments that made it up in the first place - which aren't nothing, but SOMETHING. So, there's no point in this.



Science isn't infallible. And I'm NOT arguing based on science!

I don't understand how two hydrogen molecules equate NOTHING.

Viola @ if the physical universe is material, whatever predates it must have been immaterial. Isn't that what makes the distinction possible in the first place?...Which means all that exists was made, the aftermath of a stream of reactions that was initiated at some point. Scientific wisdom implies a nuclear fission, a blast which led to a chain reaction, the cooling of led to everything we see, and the continuous radioactive half life leads to the existence of minerals and precious stone seven till today, just like how a granite is formed...




Wrong at A nuclear catastrophe can only destroy the earth at worst. I don't see what brings the universe itself into it. There's no connection. Anyways, the earth wouldn't be destroyed in the sense that it would be reduced to NOTHING - nonexistence. It could only be broken down into tiny fragments that made it up in the first place - which aren't nothing, but SOMETHING. So, there's no point in this.


[b]
I made clear and objective declaration which you agreed a day back that with a release of the nuclear war heads upon the earth, the life supporting system and the delicate supporting systems to keep life in shape would be damaged, which means an end to this current existence, Now, mathematically, we say let's balance the equation, i extrapolated the sequence and simply stated that if there was an end, then balancing the scales implies a starting point existed at some point, viz-a-viz if there's a starting point and end, then there's an independent being overseeing both ends with an expected outcome in mind, whether you belief it or not, it stretches beyond your mind...It's left for you to find this out and understand that all of these processes could never have been uncoordinated...even the smallest lab experiments if unattended would lead into chaos, for chaos to be kept at bay, requires an independent sovereign almighty that holds the card close to his chest...it's let to you to be a free-minded person, do some extra research or dodge this bullet.....
[/b]

ToZaraWithaZ:
You demanded for the process of how the physical universe came about....... and I said I DON'T KNOW.

But that the Universe as a whole [the Universe might go beyond the physical universe] is uncreated and eternal - now, that's what I KNOW. Your created God hypothesis contradicts that FACT.

When I say Universe, I'm not refering to the physical universe which started with the big bang...... I'm going beyond that. Refering to the whole of existence itself.

Afterall, UNIVERSE means EVERYTHING that exists.

BRO, IS HUMANS ALSO A PRODUCT OF BIG BANG? SINCE, ACCORDING TO YOU EVERYTHING BEGAN WITH A BIG BANG.

supersystemsnig:



This is flawed please



Now, the total energy given off by a powerful hydrogen bomb is ~50 PJ, that is ~ 50 X 1015 Joules.

If all these bombs were to be donated in the same location at exactly the same time, the total energy that would be given off is ~ 7.5 X 1020 Joules.

The lower limit of energy required to rip the earth apart is ~ 1.25 X 1032 Joules


Even electric bulb comes with wattage and denotes different capacitites, Nuclear bombs come with discharge capabilities, that's why we should calculate holistically using the average total number of war heads available on the planet...

I used the upper limit man. (1) I assumed all nuclear bombs are hydrogen bombs. (2) I used the highest estimate of H-bomb energy I know, which is 50PJ. Even if you plugged in 200PJ in the calculation, it still won't be enough to destroy the world. So I don't know what use is the average total number in this due course.

See, brov, from the movement of the air, the wind, the sun, all life supporting systems would be damaged, and the use of seed banks to say we want to restart the human race won't work, are we aware that the placement of the planet in the galactic system has an interplanetary force that makes it stay perfectly in the orbit to support life?

What has life got to do with the existence of the universe? Does the universe need life to exist?

This would disrupt the entire sequence and necessitate an external force towards the end of the destruction of the entire galatic belt to savage what is left, and that being will only reveal himself at this point, but till then is watching patiently...Trust me, 25 years of studies have given me these revelations...

Stop saying "trust me", just provide the results of your study, and let the discerning minded decide whether to trust you or not. Surely, 25 years of study means you have some peer review publications to show for it?

AgentOfAllah:

I practically just showed mathematically that it is impossible for all the nuclear bombs on earth, even if they were hydrogen bombs to even come close to destroying the earth. Destruction of life on earth does not equate to destruction of the earth. These are two different things. The earth probably predates life, and, baring any interplanetory collision, will most definitely out last it.


What is a subatomic hydrogen molecule? A hydrogen molecule is two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded, so how can they be subatomic?


To be clear, are you saying that it was nuclear fission that started the universe? If so, that's nonsense with all due respect! You'll find HERE, a brief summary of the origin of atoms. Atoms could not possibly have predated the universe. At such high energies, it was practically impossible for atoms to exist, so your whole explanation is suspicious.

See, if the life supporting systems are destroyed how would life continue to exist? I'm somewhat disturbed but will try to explain. Now the speed of the wind, the rate of the flow of air, the beam of molecules that travel as they pass through the atmosphere, all these cycles would be destroyed, then what's left? See, just 800 kilotons of nuclear blast is taking 50-100years for life to begin to re-occur where it was unleashed, now, imagine what happens when 1 million kilotons is released?


Just five months ago, Russia released videos about its improvement in its nuclear capabilities, its no longer the regular uranium and crap anymore, now we have fissile materials that when released will initiate a new set of chain reaction so there's no defensive barrier against it...You need to update yourself...A ( name with-held )-nuclear bomb can not be defended against as it would offset a continuous set of nuclear fission....Bro get some pop corn and zobo ready, the next bang isn;t religious, it's against human negatives, i.e. hate, spite etc...



Lol, the knowledge of physics is inadequate to understand what a fission is, lol, you simply don't understand, you need a chemist to help you understand, by combining just two molecules i will draw a map of how the entire elements that exist is created, allow me sketch it, uranium is produced, it is unstable produces kyrpton, argon, on and on, the cycle continues...I hope you find a more patient Physicist/Chemistry to explain it someday to do...it is unstable, keeps producing, and the massive chain reaction becomes continuous..


I won't read crap, spent 20 years of sacrifice learning and watching from the sidelines, you need to go read up on the capabilities of a fission, and not fusion...if you understand what a nuclear fission is, then you'll understand, for now, i'm gone, off to the barbing saloon to gist with my hommies...



Phck Physics, Without a thorough knowledge and embrace of Chemistry, the most advanced physicist is a learner...


Physics is not enough, without God knowledge is sh8t, even with our vast knowledge we both can claim to have, can't you see our arguements is still shallow and hollow...Bro find God....I didn't find him through the Bible, i carefully followed this trail and after 20-25 years of truth-hunting, i found Him...You can search more brov

AgentOfAllah:

I used the upper limit man. (1) I assumed all nuclear bombs are hydrogen bombs. (2) I used the highest estimate of H-bomb energy I know, which is 50PJ. Even if you plugged in 200PJ in the calculation, it still won't be enough to destroy the world. So I don't know what use is the average total number in this due course.

What has life got to do with the existence of the universe? Does the universe need life to exist?


Stop saying "trust me", just provide the results of your study, and let the discerning minded decide whether to trust you or not. Surely, 25 years of study means you have some peer review publications to show for it?

Does the universe need life to exist? you're kidding me, then it goes back to how it started, a wasted void ....don't you get it.. Doesn't this resonate with something you've heard before...

supersystemsnig:

We have to delve into quantum physics to understand the theory of how just two subatomic particles joined together leads to what we see today, for this we need to understand fission, fission and quanta, quanta been the massive amount of heat released in the aftermath of a fission, bro study half life, radioactivity, it always results in the massive release of heat and sets of a chain reaction, now when two alpha sub-atomic particles are combined, that is targeted at creating streams of sub-atmoic particles that is aimed at creating more, it creates a massive continuous amount of chain reaction in a continuous flow, i'll call it a looped chain reaction, a chain reaction that produces endless chain reaction....this was the beginning, google the amount of energy needed to combine two sub-atomic hydrogen molecules and you'll confirm my claims....


Toza, this is the jutsu of the second hokage he used on obito...I'm sure you'll resonate

Yes yes, please let's delve! I think I know enough about quantum physics to keep up. Now, please explain what two subatomic particles joined together to form our universe.

AgentOfAllah:

Yes yes, please let's delve! I think I know enough about quantum physics to keep up. Now, please explain what two subatomic particles joined together to form our universe.

It begins with " Fission "

In lay mans words, when two highly energetic particles are to be combined, it requires a massive amount of force to keep it together.....Do you agree that nuclear fission experiments irks and scares the greatest physicist? If so, but why? Unlike the reverse, it requires massive external heat to be introduced, and the aftermath is an equivalent if not tripple this amount of heat.... Now the most difficult ever element i.e. Hydrogen is the culprit, but why? Hydrogen feul and rocket launching?Are you following, because the amount of heat released or needed to put just the nuclei assimple as it may seem on paper doesn't exist on earth...I swear it on my father's body, that to produce the tiny nuclei we read on paper needs the amount of energy only the sun can provide...Delve into chemistry you'll understand...

I will be with you guys in a moment with prooof...pardon me some minutes

ONE


http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/05/why-did-the-universe-start-off-with-hydrogen-helium-and-not-much-else/


Tw things universal heating - i.e. big bang

and the current state of the world i.e. universal cooling, the after math of the entire process...

The article in the link is close to wat i'm explaining...BRB

NOW READ




The PP-cycle takes two colliding hydrogen nuclei (protons) and fuses them into a deuterium nucleus. A third proton collides with the deuterium nucleus to make a tritium nucleus. Then two tritium nuclei fuse to produce a single helium nucleus, and eject two protons to start the cycle again. Each of these steps takes a specific amount of time .The slowest step is the first one which takes about one billion years! The production of a tritium nucleus takes about 6 seconds, and a helium nucleus is formed once every million years. Additional particles called neutrinos are produced in these reactions.

In 2003, a team of scientists using the Super Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan, and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Canada succeeded in detecting all of the different types of solar neutrinos, putting to rest a controversy over the 'missing neutrinos' that had continued for nearly 40 years. These neutrinos completely confirm the 70-year-old prediction that nuclear fusion powers the sun, and therefore, all the other luminous stars in the sky!
An image of the sun taken with neutrinos that are streaming out of the hot core

An image of the sun taken with neutrinos that are streaming out of the hot core, proves that nuclear fusion is actually taking place. (Courtesy: R. Svoboda - Louisiana State University)

To generate the sun's energy, about 4 x 10^27 Watts, approximately 600 million tons of hydrogen have to be fused every second! Approximately 4 million tons of matter is converted into pure energy every second, and only about 10% of the sun is hot enough for fusion to occur. This region is defined to be the solar core. The sun can continue fusing hydrogen into helium for about 12 billion years, so since it is now 4.5 billion years old, it can continue to shine for another 7 billion years! Hydrogen fusion solves the Earth-Sun timescale problem because now the sun is comfortably of the same age as Earth. In the future, however, Earth will be come uninhabitable as the sun continues to evolve as a star.




https://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_solarenergy.php



BRB

I have been mistakening fusion with fission, Just combining two sub atomic hydrogen particles , men, i wished a chemist was here, anyway see this :



Fusion, many believe, could be the answer. It works by forcing together two types, or isotopes, of hydrogen at such a high temperature that the positively charged atoms are able to overcome their mutual repulsion and fuse. The result of this fusion is an atom of helium plus a highly energetic neutron particle. Physicists aim to capture the energy released by these emitted neutrons, and use it to drive steam turbines and produce electricity.



Now read here :


http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120810-the-quest-to-recreate-the-sun


IT IS CALLED SUN ON EARTH, AND ITS NOT JOKE ITS CALLED THE NAME...WITH OVER 10 YEARS OF RESEARCH, WE'RE JUST GETTING CLOSE TO ACHIEVING IT...SECRET SOURCES TELLS ME WE ARE CLOSE, BUT HOW CLOSE WE ARE I CAN'T SAY...MEN IF YOU KNOW WHAT NUCLEAR FUSION IS, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S THE BEGINNING OF EVERYTHING...


I REST MY PEN HERE THIS WEBSITE EXPLAINS EVERYTHING I'VE BEEN CRYING ABOUT ON THIS THREAD

supersystemsnig:
I have been mistakening fusion with fission, Just combining two sub atomic hydrogen particles , men, i wished a chemist was here, anyway see this :



Fusion, many believe, could be the answer. It works by forcing together two types, or isotopes, of hydrogen at such a high temperature that the positively charged atoms are able to overcome their mutual repulsion and fuse. The result of this fusion is an atom of helium plus a highly energetic neutron particle. Physicists aim to capture the energy released by these emitted neutrons, and use it to drive steam turbines and produce electricity.



Now read here :


http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120810-the-quest-to-recreate-the-sun


IT IS CALLED SUN ON EARTH, AND ITS NOT JOKE ITS CALLED THE NAME...WITH OVER 10 YEARS OF RESEARCH, WE'RE JUST GETTING CLOSE TO ACHIEVING IT...SECRET SOURCES TELLS ME WE ARE CLOSE, BUT HOW CLOSE WE ARE I CAN'T SAY...MEN IF YOU KNOW WHAT NUCLEAR FUSION IS, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S THE BEGINNING OF EVERYTHING...


I REST MY PEN HERE THIS WEBSITE EXPLAINS EVERYTHING I'VE BEEN CRYING ABOUT ON THIS THREAD

good job

vaxx:
good job

I'm humbled Sir...Now that i've reached climax, i need to get refreshed, bye gentlemen..

vaxx:
then if we should attempt it...the whole purpose of science and philosophy will be meaningless...in science there are some establish theory you don't query again.... The cell theory, theory of relatively...any attempt to further investigate this theory will be impossible...no need to question it again...it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be true...

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.

vaxx:
Same thing with the topic at hand. As a beliver , the first causer is an establish concept for the believer(mind you, the believer is not working with science alone)...A believer is working with three major importance of knowledge which is our senses, experiences and perception.... All this evidence can be rely own.........


The premises might not be scientifically verifiable, but it is not a problem with logic..

.

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?

Here guys :


http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/06/tech/pioneers-nuclear-fusion/index.html

supersystemsnig:
I have been mistakening fusion with fission, Just combining two sub atomic hydrogen particles , men, i wished a chemist was here, anyway see this :

It took you a while, but I'm glad you came to this realisation eventually. For the record, you disparaged my knowledge and outlined a so called map of how all elements came to exist, erroneously claiming uranium as the genesis of elements here:

supersystemsnig:

Lol, the knowledge of physics is inadequate to understand what a fission is, lol, you simply don't understand, you need a chemist to help you understand, by combining just two molecules i will draw a map of how the entire elements that exist is created, allow me sketch it, uranium is produced, it is unstable produces kyrpton, argon, on and on, the cycle continues...I hope you find a more patient Physicist/Chemistry to explain it someday to do...it is unstable, keeps producing, and the massive chain reaction becomes continuous..

You further inexplicably, and hastily dismissed the link I provided you, which would have saved you a lot of embarrassment by clarifying that nuclear fusion, not fission, brought about the existence of elements here.

I won't read crap, spent 20 years of sacrifice learning and watching from the sidelines, you need to go read up on the capabilities of a fission, and not fusion...if you understand what a nuclear fission is, then you'll understand, for now, i'm gone, off to the barbing saloon to gist with my hommies...

With your 20 years of learning, you weren't able to tell the difference between fusion and fission, a mistake that will never be made by an IB physics student. But your hubris blinded you to correction.
I hope you'll now apologize for your poor behaviour.

Here, the next big thing to replace crude oil...Power of plasma...


http://www.iflscience.com/physics/germanys-fusion-reactor-creates-hydrogen-plasma-world-first/

AgentOfAllah:

It took you a while, but I'm glad you came to this realisation eventually. For the record, you disparaged my knowledge and outlined a so called map of how all elements came to exist, erroneously claiming uranium as the genesis of elements here:


You further inexplicably, and hastily dismissed the link I provided you, which would have saved you a lot of embarrassment by clarifying that nuclear fusion, not fission, brought about the existence of elements here.



With your 20 years of learning, you weren't able to tell the difference between fusion and fission, a mistake that will never be made by an IB physics student. But your hubris blinded you to correction.
I hope you'll now apologize for your poor behaviour.

Lol @ poor behavior...its a discussion not a quarrel, dam my phone...


Is this where we fight? Where did i ever say Uranium, that shitty element, the aftermath of reactions be the source of all things...plz


If it's curses, i aint dealing, i provided scientific proof beyond any iota of doubt

No need talking anymore..Be to everyone what he deems appropriate

vaxx:
because he can not either come to be nor cease to be...

Really? Hmm.

supersystemsnig:
I have been mistakening fusion with fission, Just combining two sub atomic hydrogen particles , men, i wished a chemist was here, anyway see this :



Fusion, many believe, could be the answer. It works by forcing together two types, or isotopes, of hydrogen at such a high temperature that the positively charged atoms are able to overcome their mutual repulsion and fuse. The result of this fusion is an atom of helium plus a highly energetic neutron particle. Physicists aim to capture the energy released by these emitted neutrons, and use it to drive steam turbines and produce electricity.



Now read here :


http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120810-the-quest-to-recreate-the-sun


IT IS CALLED SUN ON EARTH, AND ITS NOT JOKE ITS CALLED THE NAME...WITH OVER 10 YEARS OF RESEARCH, WE'RE JUST GETTING CLOSE TO ACHIEVING IT...SECRET SOURCES TELLS ME WE ARE CLOSE, BUT HOW CLOSE WE ARE I CAN'T SAY...MEN IF YOU KNOW WHAT NUCLEAR FUSION IS, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S THE BEGINNING OF EVERYTHING...


I REST MY PEN HERE THIS WEBSITE EXPLAINS EVERYTHING I'VE BEEN CRYING ABOUT ON THIS THREAD

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.

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).

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

When guru plenty pass dullard, confusion sets in

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.

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).

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

The beginning of existence was more geo chemical interactions, seeing it from one plane, i.e. physics doesn't provide the details you may seek.

Binding energy, energy required to break stable molecular bonds and release massive continuous and lengthy chain reactions are within the boundaries of physics and chemisty, it requires thorough understanding of both fields to grasp...I have provided texts explaining things earlier, check and you'll confirm and validate my positions...


The energy of the plasma as its been called operates on this principle, and guess what, this is what is coming to replace crude oil, the energy of the vacuum it is called...Put it down brv

Happy weekend, any drinks for me? Email it

adepeter2027:
When guru plenty pass dullard, confusion sets in

e no be like that brov...we just dey chill ni jare.. as omo igboro..

supersystemsnig:



Lol @ poor behavior...its a discussion not a quarrel, dam my phone...


Is this where we fight? Where did i ever say Uranium, that shitty element, the aftermath of reactions be the source of all things...plz


If it's curses, i aint dealing, i provided scientific proof beyond any iota of doubt

No need talking anymore..Be to everyone what he deems appropriate

Ladies and gentlemen, this right here is a theist after my own heart. He breathes and shits true and pure scientific knowledge. If you can't keep up then just give up.

No homo bro but I love you.

butterflyl1on:


Ladies and gentlemen, this right here is a theist after my own heart. He breathes and shits true and pure scientific knowledge. If you can't keep up then just give up.

No homo bro but I love you.

You're kiddin me ryt?

Me atheist ? Lol You wished...

I've seen the throne of the Lord with my plain eyes, in my personal experience...In due time in the future i will explain how in my rebellion i set out on a quest that took me over twenty two years and then found Him at the end...and when i found Him, He was the gentlest thing i've ever seen or experienced...So i aint an atheist because i understand science.. this ended my quest for deep knowledge of the universe, so i aint in that crew brov, no offense...

supersystemsnig:



The beginning of existence was more geo chemical interactions, seeing it from one plane, i.e. physics doesn't provide the details you may seek.

Binding energy, energy required to break stable molecular bonds and release massive continuous and lengthy chain reactions are within the boundaries of physics and chemisty, it requires thorough understanding of both fields to grasp...I have provided texts explaining things earlier, check and you'll confirm and validate my positions...


The energy of the plasma as its been called operates on this principle, and guess what, this is what is coming to replace crude oil, the energy of the vacuum it is called...Put it down brv

Happy weekend, any drinks for me? Email it

Well I wasn't at Big Bang but I can confidently tell you that it didn't involve those.

It's not possible to explain Big Bang with chemical reactions. For instance, the death of the sun can't produce an earth like environment. If Big Bang was actually a chemical reaction similar to nuclear reactions, they wouldn't be a living environment like ours.

Like I said, I am a B.Sc holder and I can't speak authoritatively.

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.

Remember, Big Bang is just one of the theories of the beginning of the universe. The most acceptable anyway but that doesn't make it the true account of the beginning of the universe.

supersystemsnig:

Lol @ poor behavior...its a discussion not a quarrel, dam my phone...

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.

Is this where we fight? Where did i ever say Uranium, that shitty element, the aftermath of reactions be the source of all things...plz

Read your shitty comment which I quoted again.

If it's curses, i aint dealing, i provided scientific proof, the last time i carried your so-called textbooks was over 17 years ago, so you can take back the IB tag..

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 need talking anymore..Be to everyone what he deems appropriate

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

mrphysics:

Well I wasn't at Big Bang but I can confidently tell you that it didn't involve those.

It's not possible to explain Big Bang with chemical reactions. For instance, the death of the sun can't produce an earth like environment. If Big Bang was actually a chemical reaction similar to nuclear reactions, they wouldn't be a living environment like ours.

Like I said, I am a B.Sc holder and I can't speak authoritatively.

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.

Remember, Big Bang is just one of the theories of the beginning of the universe. The most acceptable anyway but that doesn't make it the true account of the beginning of the universe.

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

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...


Atheists do some more digging, i'm sure you'll find the answers, reaserch :

Binding Energy

Hydrogen Fission

Hydrogen Fusion

Sun on Earth

Universal Cooling

Splitting Hydrogen Atom



The truth is near us, embrace it...Do not project yourself on knowledge if our own horizons aren't expanding, otherwise,the same cranky vessel would just be spinning contents and remain locked from new truths...


My two cents...But keeping up...

supersystemsnig:


You're kiddin me ryt?

Me atheist ? Lol You wished...

I've seen the throne of the Lord with my plain eyes, in my personal experience...In due time in the future i will explain how in my rebellion i set out on a quest that took me over twenty two years and then found Him at the end...and when i found Him, He was the gentlest thing i've ever seen or experienced...So i aint an atheist because i understand science.. this ended my quest for deep knowledge of the universe, so i aint in that crew brov, no offense...

I said A THEIST not ATHEIST

butterflyl1on:



I said A THEIST not ATHEIST

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...