On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:07:02 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 6:01:29 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 6:36:30 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Russell, the God Principal is now considered scientific reality. So if you believe that the universe doesn't have an intelligence behind its appearance you would be the one on the side of religion and not visa versa.
>> Gee, I must have missed the peer reviewed white paper from anyone in the scientific community on the scientific proof of the existence of any god. Quick note: YEC and ID websites are _not_ "scientific reality". You can quote Behe, Dembski, Answers in Genesis, Evolutionnews.org, Discovery Institute, and other YEC or ID proponents all you want, the ID scam is just that - a scam. We aren't surprised tommy would fall for it - to the extent that he's now calling 'science' a 'religion', and vice versa.
>> > They have had to come up totally unbelievable theories to get the universe to make the slightest sense.
>> As believable as "god did it". At least these theories can be mathematically modeled People way smarter than me and way way way (ad infinitum) smarter than you developed these theories. Oh and may of them are actually religious.
>> > The universe is at least three times larger than the oldest guess of the age of the universe. So what do they come up with to explain that?
>> Explain how something being three times larger than it's age makes any rational sense and you might get an answer.
>> > That the speed of light didn't exist during the Big Bang.
>> Sure it did. It was different at that time. You see sparky, the expansion of the universe during the Planck Epoch was not constrained by the laws of physics as we currently know them. Quantum physics proves the laws of physics as defined by classical mechanics do not apply universally, and modeling suggests massive differences even by the current understanding of quantum theory.
>> > That the Universe achieved 90% of its size in the first 92 microseconds.
>> This is the one point in this response I had to look up. I couldn't find anything to support tommy's claim (surprise surprise) and speculations on the size of the universe as a function of time (which itself was variable at during the Planck Epoch and just after) are simply speculations. I did find the following article, written by Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel for Forbes Magazine:
>>
>> "The diameter of the Milky Way is 100,000 light years; the observable Universe had this as its radius when it was approximately 3 years old"
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/24/how-big-was-the-universe-at-the-moment-of-its-creation/?sh=668778aa4cea
>>
>> Considering that the best guesses for the current size of the universe are 93 billion light-years, the speculation that the universe was 100,000 light years at three years old made it ~0.0001% of what it is now. Many, Many orders of magnitude different than tommy's claim that it was 90% at 92 usec.
>> And yes, tommy, I believe an article written by a physicist for Forbes magazine before I believe you.
>> > Remember that you're a book keeper and not a physicist.
>> And remember you're a high school dropout, and not an engineer, let alone a physicist.
>>
>> Shut the fuck up tommy.
>
>When you have a brain that refuses to actually look for things, it is no surprise you know nothing. When you are happy to lie about anything and everything it is not surprising you think that you know something when I'd be surprised if you can pee without wetting yourself.
>
>https://strangenotions.com/how-contemporary-physics-points-to-god/

Tommy, did you actually read the site that you quote? I ask as it
certainly doesn't "prove" anything. It's "proof" is a series of
comments on theories. And, I hate to disillusion you but theories are
not "proof"... until they are proved.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 03:50:06 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org>
wrote:

> That probably would not have stopped Joy B!

I've been hibernating ever since my water bottle froze.

http://wlweather.net/LETTERS/2022BANN/2022BAN1.HTM#grumpy

By the time I get enough clothes on, it's time to turn around and come
home.

26 January 2022

I had something more to say, but I've forgotten what it was.

I do have a Sprawlmart tour planned for Saturday.

--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 11:07:04 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 6:01:29 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 6:36:30 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Russell, the God Principal is now considered scientific reality. So if you believe that the universe doesn't have an intelligence behind its appearance you would be the one on the side of religion and not visa versa.
> > Gee, I must have missed the peer reviewed white paper from anyone in the scientific community on the scientific proof of the existence of any god. Quick note: YEC and ID websites are _not_ "scientific reality". You can quote Behe, Dembski, Answers in Genesis, Evolutionnews.org, Discovery Institute, and other YEC or ID proponents all you want, the ID scam is just that - a scam. We aren't surprised tommy would fall for it - to the extent that he's now calling 'science' a 'religion', and vice versa.
> > > They have had to come up totally unbelievable theories to get the universe to make the slightest sense.
> > As believable as "god did it". At least these theories can be mathematically modeled People way smarter than me and way way way (ad infinitum) smarter than you developed these theories. Oh and may of them are actually religious.
> > > The universe is at least three times larger than the oldest guess of the age of the universe. So what do they come up with to explain that?
> > Explain how something being three times larger than it's age makes any rational sense and you might get an answer.
> > > That the speed of light didn't exist during the Big Bang.
> > Sure it did. It was different at that time. You see sparky, the expansion of the universe during the Planck Epoch was not constrained by the laws of physics as we currently know them. Quantum physics proves the laws of physics as defined by classical mechanics do not apply universally, and modeling suggests massive differences even by the current understanding of quantum theory.
> > > That the Universe achieved 90% of its size in the first 92 microseconds.
> > This is the one point in this response I had to look up. I couldn't find anything to support tommy's claim (surprise surprise) and speculations on the size of the universe as a function of time (which itself was variable at during the Planck Epoch and just after) are simply speculations. I did find the following article, written by Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel for Forbes Magazine:
> >
> > "The diameter of the Milky Way is 100,000 light years; the observable Universe had this as its radius when it was approximately 3 years old"
> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/24/how-big-was-the-universe-at-the-moment-of-its-creation/?sh=668778aa4cea
> >
> > Considering that the best guesses for the current size of the universe are 93 billion light-years, the speculation that the universe was 100,000 light years at three years old made it ~0.0001% of what it is now. Many, Many orders of magnitude different than tommy's claim that it was 90% at 92 usec.
> > And yes, tommy, I believe an article written by a physicist for Forbes magazine before I believe you.
> > > Remember that you're a book keeper and not a physicist.
> > And remember you're a high school dropout, and not an engineer, let alone a physicist.
> >
> > Shut the fuck up tommy.
> When you have a brain that refuses to actually look for things, it is no surprise you know nothing.

Sure sparky, the fact that I post links supporting my claims means 'i refuse to look for things'.

> When you are happy to lie about anything and everything it is not surprising you think that you know something

More claiming that everyone else is lying, when you show nothing that that supports your claims. Any luck finding some corroboration for "the Universe achieved 90% of its size in the first 92 microseconds."?

> when I'd be surprised if you can pee without wetting yourself.

That would be something a 77 year old drop out who could never hold a job would have to worry about more than a gainfully employed 59 year old career engineer whom people constantly tell that he looks like hes in his 40's.
> https://strangenotions.com/how-contemporary-physics-points-to-god/

Sorry sparky, an article from a priest with no training in physics writing a review for his own book comes no where close to proving "the God Principal is now considered scientific reality". When we see peer reviewed articles published in physics or cosmology repositories make the claim that the "the God Principal is now considered scientific reality", we'll give it some credibility. Until then, it's simply wishful thinking on the parts of those who don't or can't understand the research (that would e you on both counts).
Shut the fuck up tommy.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 23:28:41 -0500, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

> I do have a Sprawlmart tour planned for Saturday.

Found a pair of sandals that actually fit, but I decided to wear them
while looking at other shoes, and didn't get half an aisle before I
took them off (without bending over except to pick them up) and walked
back in my stocking feet. Though they buckled, neither buckle did
anything to keep my feet in the slipper.

And they had such nice stiff soles!

I forgot to take my bottle in at Dollar Tree and it froze. Luckily,
that was the turn-around point, and, making no stops, it took only
forty minutes to come home.

Now is a fine time to think of it: Dollar Tree has a restroom; I
could have run hot water on the valve.

I did make one stop: to put on my windbreaker.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/