The Age of the Universe

[Loudmouth]

So therefore how old is the universe?

Is an “all ways” existing universe a rational concept? Could the universe have a rational beginning, springing out of nothing?

Science is already pointing to energy popping out of nowhere independent of the Big Bang model. One such effect is Hawking radiation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

This is where virtual particles pop in and out of existence near the event horizon of a black hole. If one partner of the virtual partical pair gets pulled into the black hole it leaves it's partner to produce very real radiation.

"Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[10] As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles takes away some of the mass of the black hole.[11]"

As Davian mentions earlier, with gravity being negative energy it produces a situation where you can energy/mass and still balance the books out at zero. Afterall, 1000 - 1000 = 0

 

[Michael]

Science is already pointing to energy popping out of nowhere independent of the Big Bang model. One such effect is Hawking radiation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

This is where virtual particles pop in and out of existence near the event horizon of a black hole. If one partner of the virtual partical pair gets pulled into the black hole it leaves it's partner to produce very real radiation.

Bzzt. That "real radiation" comes from a *real* thing, namely a black hole that is full of energy which is *evaporating* over time. The energy didn't come from "nowhere", it came from energy *inside* the "black hole", as well as from preexisting energy *outside* the black hole.

As Davian mentions earlier, with gravity being negative energy

Gravity is *NOT* a form of energy in GR, it's a *geometric curvature*, like a hill. You can ride up a hill or down a hill.

it produces a situation where you can energy/mass and still balance the books out at zero. Afterall, 1000 - 1000 = 0

Talk about belief in things that you've never actually seen. When was the last time you saw a whole atom go 'poof' from nothing in lab?

 

[Michael]

Burn the Strawmen

• Davian
• Apr 9, 2014

Strawman my eye. Your appeal to authority fallacy just blew up in your face so you got all miffed about it.

 

[Michael]

FYI, the notion that you can simply use gravity to 'offset' energy simply ignores the *use* of energy over time, as well as the *change* of energy over time, as well as the *distance* between objects which would also require *energy*! The whole argument is based upon *mixing* different theories of gravity because only in *Newtonian* theory of gravity could you call gravity a form of energy. BB theory however is based on GR, and in GR, gravity is simply a *spacetime geometric curvature*, not a form of *energy*! Holy Cow. You guys will buy anything as long as it doesn't contain the term 'God'. You've got matter pooping magically out of thin air!

 

[Michael]

Oh ya, and that bogus claim about gravity offsetting energy also utterly ignores *chemical energy*, including all the chemical energy we use in fossil fuel plants every single day, the energy use of our cars, and all the chemical energy that put objects into space. What a *ridiculous and easily debunked claim*!

 

[Davian]

Strawman <snip>

...
Not one of them can name so much as a single demonstrated source of "dark energy',
...

Indeed. The rest I cannot be bothered with.

At least Alfven won an actual Nobel Prize, unlike Hawking.

And an actual appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Science is already pointing to energy popping out of nowhere independent of the Big Bang model. One such effect is Hawking radiation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

This is where virtual particles pop in and out of existence near the event horizon of a black hole. If one partner of the virtual partical pair gets pulled into the black hole it leaves it's partner to produce very real radiation.

"Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[10] As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles takes away some of the mass of the black hole.[11]"

As Davian mentions earlier, with gravity being negative energy it produces a situation where you can energy/mass and still balance the books out at zero. Afterall, 1000 - 1000 = 0

Except Hawking Radiation is another one of those Fairie Dust theories.

""Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining....."

Lot's of imagination, but sadly no Hawking Radiation, no Dark Matter, no Dark Energy, no Black Holes, no Gravity Waves, waving - and still nothing detected. I'd say the only physical insight that has been gained is that they do not exist. Except of course in the imagination....

 

[Loudmouth]

Except Hawking Radiation is another one of those Fairie Dust theories.

""Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining....."

Lot's of imagination, but sadly no Hawking Radiation, no Dark Matter, no Dark Energy, no Black Holes, no Gravity Waves, waving - and still nothing detected. I'd say the only physical insight that has been gained is that they do not exist. Except of course in the imagination....

You have already shown that you ignore all facts. Why keep pretending that you care about the evidence?

 

[Michael]

Indeed. The rest I cannot be bothered with.

And an actual appeal to authority fallacy.

You started it. I just played the fallacy game better because I picked a better authority figure.

FYI, Alfven (the actual Nobel Prize winning scientist) flatly rejected the whole concept of "creation mythology". Even his "bang" theory didn't require the concentration of all matter/antimatter to a single point. It was more of a cyclical sort of thing where matter and antimatter plasma sheets contract until they start to interact and then they blow themselves apart again. There's definitely no "something from nothing" sort of creation mythology from Alfven's writings.

What exactly do mainstream astronomers really "know" about their own theory if they can't even name a single source for "dark energy" and that makes up most of their theory, and they've falsified every one of their most popular "dark matter" theories in multiple experiments, and in multiple ways?

Your authority figures don't even seem to understand *their own* theories very well, let alone have any grasp at all of plasma physics. They're still peddling a concept that Alfven made obsolete over 35 years ago with this double layer paper, and a concept that he called *pseudoscience* till the day he died.

Even the miniscule five percent of actual physics they 'sort of' understand, they've kludged up with a bunch of pseudo-scientific ideas and nonsense. They couldn't correctly identify a Birkeland current if their life depended upon it, and virtually none of them understand how to apply circuit theory to plasmas!

 

[Davian]

You started it. I just played the fallacy game better because I picked a better authority figure.

lol. You can't even resist misrepresenting the fallacies you commit.

 

[Michael]

Er, in Hawking's mythical "net zero energy" universe, what exactly offsets "dark energy"? Inflation?

The more you think about his claims, the use of energy over time, the chemical energy aspects, the heat aspects, the "expansion" process, the "dark energy" claims, etc, his "net zero" energy claim sounds more ridiculous by the second.

What offsets all that expansion "energy"? It sure isn't "gravity" in an accelerating universe! Holy Cow. His claims don't even logically make any sense even in the context of Lambda-CDM, let alone from the standpoint of chemistry.

 

[Michael]

lol. You can't even resist misrepresenting the fallacies you commit.

Oh come on. You started with Hawking. I just upped the ante with Alfven and raised you a Nobel.

 

[Davian]

Er, in Hawking's mythical "net zero energy" universe, what exactly offsets "dark energy"? Inflation?

What colour is dark energy? Where does dark energy go when the Sun comes up? How can you have inflation without air compressors?

Keep going.

 

[Davian]

Oh come on. You started with Hawking.

Do you consider Hawking not to be an authority on astrophysics? It's not a fallacy if the person is an actual authority on the subject.

I just upped the ante with Alfven and raised you a Nobel.

And failed. Does a Nobel automatically validate all of the other claims made by the recipient of such an award? No?

 

[joshua 1 9]

In a court of law, are you allowed to admit second hand and third hand testimony? "Your honor, an uncle of mine talked to an eyewitness who said that the defendant committed the murder, but that eye witness has since disappeared." Would that work?

Out of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John only Luke offered second hand testimony for the most part. Mark did not actually travel with the disciples, he was the son of the Mary that managed the Upper room where Jesus and the disciples stayed in Jerusalem. Mark did indeed love to hear all the stores, but some of the events he writes about he was there and give a first hand witness and testimony to what he saw.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Where is the evidence that any of those men ate with Jesus? You are aware that men can write fictional stories, right?

Even more amazing than that. Men can take a true story and try to argue that is is fiction even though they don't have a shred of evidence to back up their claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

Out of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John only Luke offered second hand testimony for the most part. Mark did not actually travel with the disciples, he was the son of the Mary that managed the Upper room where Jesus and the disciples stayed in Jerusalem. Mark did indeed love to hear all the stores, but some of the events he writes about he was there and give a first hand witness and testimony to what he saw.

All of the references I have read state that none of the gospel writers were disciples, nor did they ever meet Jesus. Luke and Matthew plagiarize Mark for the most part.

What you have, at best, is second hand stories told by a third party. What you most likely have are legends that grew in cults and were written down.

 

[Michael]

Do you consider Hawking not to be an authority on astrophysics?

Not exactly, particularly that "net zero energy" commentary. It's not even consistent with current astrophysical theory, chemistry or anything else for that matter. GR isn't a form of *energy* at all in GR theory, it's simply a *geometric curvature*, like a hill. He has it rolling *up* a hill, and *speeding up*, and yet he's claiming there's a "net zero" amount of energy? That's not even the least bit logical, nor is it consistent with GR theory, an expanding universe, and certainly not an *accelerating* universe full of "dark energy" for which he's offered no explanation at all.

[It's not a fallacy if the person is an actual authority on the subject.

Based on that "net zero energy" claim, and his lack of any ability to even name a source of dark energy, I'm not particularly impressed with his 'authority' in astrophysics.

And failed.

I didn't fail. Alfven did win the Nobel, and he also wrote over 100 papers related to astrophysics.

Does a Nobel automatically validate all of the other claims made by the recipient of such an award? No?

No, nor did Hawkings rantings about a "net zero" energy universe stop the sun from shining today, or tomorrow, or the next day.....

 

[Loudmouth]

Even more amazing than that. Men can take a true story and try to argue that is is fiction even though they don't have a shred of evidence to back up their claim.

What is amazing is that you can proclaim it is a true story with no evidence to back it up. You are the one who claims that the gospels are true. It is your job to prove it.

 

[Michael]

What colour is dark energy? Where does dark energy go when the Sun comes up? How can you have inflation without air compressors?

Keep going.

Imagine me trying to ridicule your questions about God, and how impressed you'd be by it. That's about as effective as that argument.