Message from @OffKilter
Discord ID: 322613727444860931
Yes yes.
Hello.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Would you trust more to the catholic priest?
I never said BBT was holy. You keep bring it up.
Also Bijective epistemology does not say there was never a big bang, it says that energy is non-created.
Holy shit, communists. Run for the bomb shelter Davie!
I want to find out the truth. If it is one of the theories and it might be false why do you say it disproved the rest?
I always stated this in the context of the observed expansion of the universe, with theories explaining this. I never meant all theories ever about physics.
I actually agree with the above paper.
Where it says "time is merely a mathematical parameter of material changes" is true.
"Cosmological Big Bang model is insufficient to explain appearance of energy at the time of the beginning which is not in accord with the first law of thermodynamics" is also true.
@Deleted User I think there can be a billion of things we do not know about the expansion from the single point. I think we do not know. You said it disproves other theories. I would like to see how it disproves paper above.
I think this is a misunderstanding. These scientists (http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/html/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.11.html) are not saying that the expansion of the universe didn't happen. They are saying that the Big Bang theory alone does not explain the beginning of the universe. That seems fully reasonable to me. This paper acknowledged that at one point time had a beginning.
The question is, what did the quantum potentials do in order for time to begin? How do they actualise without motion?
The question of "the beginning" and "the end" of the universe seems not to be right one. In the universe galaxies, stars and planets appear and disappear; universe itself is eternal. This model of the universe has much more epistemological stability than all other models which predict beginning of the universe. Idea of the beginning comes out of human imagination that universe exists in some linear time which is physical reality. Our research confirms time we measure with clocks has only a mathematical existence; it is a numerical order of changes running in quantum vacuum. Past, present and future belong to the psychological time in which we experience flow of changes running in quantum vacuum where is always NOW
**The question of "the beginning" and "the end" of the universe seems not to be right one. In the universe galaxies, stars and planets appear and disappear; universe itself is eternal. **
There might be a misunderstanding, yes. π
9 seats left in the UK elections right now
I agree. But being eternal does not mean it is eternally in motion. Interestingly, this paper argues that time is not a characteristic of the universe and only exists in mathematical abstraction. It says "motion requires the re-reading of some experimental data" due to time being the mathematical parameter of change. Notice how it says time is not a physical dimension of the universe, not motion.
@Deleted User I think time is an abstract concept as well. Proriv thinks time is universal and material.
It is actually a topic where everybody disagree.
But I do not fanatically follow catholic priest and judaist tradition because it was made popular.
Have to go, brother.
I do not know enough about " fundamental primordial energy of DQV" or "energy of quantum vacuum" to know whether they change into cosmic rays readily.
OK. Thanks for the brain workout.
Earth is Flat n shit
You did perfectly.
looks to me like there will be a Conservative-DUP coalition government
parliament is kill
the conservatives did not get the number of seats they wanted to keep majority right?
it will be a coalition government
they aren't able to get a majority
there could just as easily be a re-election because of this though
i heard reports earlier that many young student were being turned away from the polls
5 seats remaining
>world is fuck
>Seriously, vote for Corbyn