TenQ:

SInce the gravitational singularity IS THE Universe,
Doe the Universe fulfil BOTH of these conditions
1. having a gravity/mass is extremely dense (its density tends to infinity)
2. having its size as extremely small (almost no dimensional size)

I see you are having a hard time grasping the answers.

So think of it this way, if you could compress all the mass in an entire house to the size of a ping-pong ball, it's would become extremely dense, more dense than when it was it's normal size, and it would be extremely small now,
so let's compress it further to the size of a head of a needle, the density will further increase wouldn't it? If you keep compressing it to a smaller and smaller size, there will be a point at which the density will be considered infinite even if the mass is still just the mass of a normal house.

But what happens if you were to expand it to its original size? The density reduces and the size increases, and it no longer is considered to be infinitely dense.

DeusXmachina:

I see you are having a hard time grasping the answers.

So think of it this way, if you could compress all the mass in an entire house to the size of a ping-pong ball, it's would become extremely dense, more dense than when it was it's normal size, and it would be extremely small now,
so let's compress it further to the size of a head of a needle, the density will further increase wouldn't it? If you keep compressing it to a smaller and smaller size, there will be a point at which the density will be considered infinite even if the mass is still just the mass of a normal house.

But what happens if you were to expand it to its original size? The density reduces and the size increases, and it no longer is considered to be infinitely dense.

If you had followed the discussion you will understand that Workch insisted that the Gravitational Singularity was a CONSTANT.
Every attempt to convince him that if the gravitational singularity changed state (inflation) it cannot be a constant fell into deaf ears!
Instead, he was blindly argueing conservation of energy without looking at the CHANGE of STATE!

If the Original Gravitational Singularity Changed State by inflating to form our Universe, it cannot be said to be eternal.

FYI: I understand the relationship between Mass, Volume and Density!

Workch:
You want an inflated singularity to still remain a singularity.

You said So by yourself!

TenQ:

So, why waste everybodies time by insisting that Gravitational Singularity was a Constant entity!?

Check the attached: just admit that you were confused and you want to rewrite your thesis

TenQ:

What of if the premise wat true?

Now, back to the beginning: can you falsify any of the premises below and thus its conclusion?

The simple verifiable premises
1. The Universe and ALL Physical things have an origin (approximately 13.8 billion years ago)- by definition the universe consists of all physical material that exist consisting of our earth, moon, galaxy and universe
2. There exist the "Law of cause and effect": Without a cause there cannot be an effect AND an effect is what initiates a cause
3. An Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is impossible
Conclusion:
Since things exist and obey the law of Cause and Effect, there must therefore exist an "Uncaused First-Cause" of everything (aka God).

You're all about logic but you believe in the trinity
When cosmologists say the universe had an origin, they're not saying it suddenly popped out of absolute nothingness; but rather it marked the beginning of our physical laws. In essence,it had 'always' been in existence.
If you can arbitrary define the uncaused first-cause,then why can't it be what preceded the beginning of it's physical laws– that is in fact the next direct and obvious thing to say. You imputing God is tantamount to imputing an invisible Greek god of the sun Apollo as what causes Earth's rotation along it's axis,hence day and night; when we can simply just leave it that way as the rotation of earth along its axis. They both can be said to be causes– but there is absolutely no reasonable reason to bring Apollo into the equation.

TenQ:

If you had followed the discussion you will understand that Workch insisted that the Gravitational Singularity was a CONSTANT.
Every attempt to convince him that if the gravitational singularity changed state (inflation) it cannot be a constant fell into deaf ears!
Instead, he was blindly argueing conservation of energy without looking at the CHANGE of STATE!

If the Original Gravitational Singularity Changed State by inflating to form our Universe, it cannot be said to be eternal.

FYI: I understand the relationship between Mass, Volume and Density!

Still doesn’t get it.

Drop your pride and let’s teach you.
Simple mass, volume and density relationship would have cured this ignorance

TenQ:

You said So by yourself!


Check the attached: just admit that you were confused and you want to rewrite your thesis

Lol

You are the person who can’t grasp basic mass, volume and density relationship.
It was like the second topic in SS1 physics and you still struggle to understand it.

TenQ:

If you had followed the discussion you will understand that Workch insisted that the Gravitational Singularity was a CONSTANT.
Every attempt to convince him that if the gravitational singularity changed state (inflation) it cannot be a constant fell into deaf ears!
Instead, he was blindly argueing conservation of energy without looking at the CHANGE of STATE!

If the Original Gravitational Singularity Changed State by inflating to form our Universe, it cannot be said to be eternal.

FYI: I understand the relationship between Mass, Volume and Density!

Which one is change of state again? How did change in state enter this topic? You use scientific terms without properly understanding what they mean.

This one na mumu

What’s the business of change of state in this one now?

Workch:
Which one is change of state again? How did change in state enter this topic? You use scientific terms without properly understanding what they mean.

This one na mumu

What’s the business of change of state in this one now?

Please lecture me, how would you scientifically describe a singularity that used to be infinitely dense but has NOW expanded/inflated to form our universe?
Note: Your uncultured verbal diarrhea doesn't have any effect on me: its normal of many atheists

Workch:
Lol

You are the person who can’t grasp basic mass, volume and density relationship.
It was like the second topic in SS1 physics and you still struggle to understand it.

Like your mentor, lying is an innate thing!

tatatar:

You're all about logic but you believe in the trinity

Anyone who understands WAVE-PARTICLE duality of matter will understand that is a CONTRADICTION just like Trinity!

tatatar:

When cosmologists say the universe had an origin, they're not saying it suddenly popped out of absolute nothingness; but rather it marked the beginning of our physical laws. In essence,it had 'always' been in existence.
If you can arbitrary define the uncaused first-cause,then why can't it be what preceded the beginning of it's physical laws– that is in fact the next direct and obvious thing to say. You imputing God is tantamount to imputing an invisible Greek god of the sun Apollo as what causes Earth's rotation along it's axis,hence day and night; when we can simply just leave it that way as the rotation of earth along its axis. They both can be said to be causes– but there is absolutely no reasonable reason to bring Apollo into the equation.

No Sir!

1. Is it possible scientifically to have an infinite repetition of cause and effect?
The answer is NO!
2. The law Conservation of Energy suggests that an "Scientifically Unknown kind of Primary Self-existing Container of all Energy" must have existed in the eternal past (which for want of better nomenclature I have called) the "the Uncaused-First-Cause of everything"
3. Whatever this "the Uncaused-First-Cause of everything" is must be outside the Physical Universe (as it cannot obey the current-known laws of Physics)
4. The conservation of Energy and Matter suggests that BOTH Energy and Matter are exactly the same thing AND it doesn't Exclude the "the Uncaused-First-Cause" as the primary ENERGY!

Now the "Uncaused-First-Cause of everything" needn't be ALIVE, such only need to be a CONSTANT entity to have survived beyond time.

But the question is:
If the "Uncaused-First-Cause of everything" is a CONSTANT THING, how did it change
For me, it is easier to comprehend that the "Uncaused-First-Cause of everything" is a CONSTANT PERSONALITY

This Constant Personality is what we Christians call by the Title "God"!

It is quite as simple as this

TenQ:

Please lecture me, how would you scientifically describe a singularity that used to be infinitely dense but has NOW expanded/inflated to form our universe?
Note: Your uncultured verbal diarrhea doesn't have any effect on me: its normal of many atheists

You are a dullard. Change of state is not the right statement to use scientifically in this topic.

We have 4 states of matter in science; solid, liquid, plasma and gas. Change of state means that moving from one of these states to another.

Illiterate, that’s not what happened to the inflating universe. Stop arguing and learn the basics

Workch:
You are a dullard. Change of state is not the right statement to use scientifically in this topic.

We have 4 states of matter in science; solid, liquid, plasma and gas. Change of state means that moving from one of these states to another.

Illiterate, that’s not what happened to the inflating universe. Stop arguing and learn the basics

SInce gravitational singularity is neither a solid, liquid, gas or plasma, what is the correct scientific grammar to describe its change of form from a singularity to the universe.

It's a shame when English language comprehension has failed in some people forming "scientific dude"

DeusXmachina:

I see you are having a hard time grasping the answers.

So think of it this way, if you could compress all the mass in an entire house to the size of a ping-pong ball, it's would become extremely dense, more dense than when it was it's normal size, and it would be extremely small now,
so let's compress it further to the size of a head of a needle, the density will further increase wouldn't it? If you keep compressing it to a smaller and smaller size, there will be a point at which the density will be considered infinite even if the mass is still just the mass of a normal house.

But what happens if you were to expand it to its original size? The density reduces and the size increases, and it no longer is considered to be infinitely dense.

hey

TheSourcerer:
hey

Sup?

DeusXmachina:

Sup?

hey man!

TheSourcerer:
hey man!

Saw you mentioned me, I haven't logged in for a while to reply then.

Workch:


Going by that logic, if everything has to be created then god must also be created by something and if nothing created god, it’s more logical to worship nothing. Nothing is actually the true creator since he created god.

Nwanne, you're wise.

Biko message me on WhatsApp + 234 909 5000 603 so that you can join EXPOSING RELIGIOUS LIES.