• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 31 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Not to the universe, but to eachother.


Tell that to the string theorists.

Time and space are a coordinate system. It is a mistake to think that the universe's existence requires them, or that you can infer the non-existence of the universe from the absence of 4 particular coordinate dimensions.

That's two strikes. Wanna take a third swing?
Just because you pretend to be correct does not magically make you correct - or did your magic man whisper into your ear that you are correct so you have no choice but to believe him?

The big bang is not like an explosion of matter in otherwise empty space; rather, space itself began with the big bang and carried matter with it as it expanded. Physicists think that even time began with the big bang.

Why Do We Think the Big Bang Happened?
Three main observational results over the past century led astronomers to become certain that the universe began with the big bang.
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm


I never said anything resembling that. You are lying.
The magic man made you forget all about it, eh? You can do a forum search for yourself and magic man. You will find it goes the entire way back to the point the threads vanish from the forum due to age/number. You and this magic man go way back. You brought him into being when you tried to say that the universe does not actually exist and that the posts on the forum are not real and that is why you were able to say you answered questions you clearly did not answer. If the universe does not exist neither do the questions posed inside the universe.

Pretty nutty.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Just because you pretend to be correct does not magically make you correct - or did your magic man whisper into your ear that you are correct so you have no choice but to believe him?


http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm
The best you have is some ugly blog from a 3rd year undergrad at Cal Tech written in 2000? Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Just quit while you're only so far behind.

The magic man made you forget all about it, eh? You can do a forum search for yourself and magic man.
Can I? Show me. Quote me.

You will find it goes the entire way back to the point the threads vanish from the forum due to age/number. You and this magic man go way back. You brought him into being when you tried to say that the universe does not actually exist and that the posts on the forum are not real and that is why you were able to say you answered questions you clearly did not answer. If the universe does not exist neither do the questions posed inside the universe.

Pretty nutty.
I never said the things you attribute to me, you pathetic liar.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
First, congradulations on just blindly copying the competing "theories" from wikipedia...though you do show a decided lack of understanding about what which you blindly copied.

The best you have is some ugly blog from a 3rd year undergrad at Cal Tech written in 2000? Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
String theory? Which of the plethora of models do you suggest is the correct one? Really, that is what you got? Your link also does not say anothing about the start of the universe, and it cannot, since the multitude of competing string theories all describe the structure of the existing universe.

This is not even a valid scientific theory, as it is not falsifiable. From your own link (did you even read these before posting them?):

As of now, no experimental or observational evidence of extra dimensions has been officially reported. An analysis of results from the Large Hadron Collider in December 2010 severely constrains theories with large extra dimensions.[7]

This one assumes the brane model must be true.

Branes again...fail is your middle name, eh?


Just quit while you're only so far behind.
You forgot the big one, which is just as likely as the branes you are so entranced by. The one where the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Grean Green Arkleseisure.

But in seriousness, if you are going to pretend to be smart, you do need to read your own links.


Can I? Show me. Quote me.

I never said the things you attribute to me, you pathetic liar.
Here you go. This is where you start invoking the magic man who makes things stop being real:

Invalid inference. You do not know that you have any evidence, since you cannot logically exclude that what you believe to be evidence is in fact a supernatural illusion. You take the alleged evidence on faith that this is not the case.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32994405&postcount=595

Here is where this magic man makes you believe the universe does not exist:

You are still invited to demonstrate that the universe began to exist.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32998387&postcount=615
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
NASA is a pretty good source for things about the universe, wouldn't you say? Here is what NASA says:

Hubble noted that galaxies outside our own Milky Way were all moving away from us, each at a speed proportional to its distance from us. He quickly realized what this meant that there must have been an instant in time (now known to be about 14 billion years ago) when the entire Universe was contained in a single point in space. The Universe must have been born in this single violent event which came to be known as the "Big Bang."
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/


Or how about wikipedia, the place you blindly copied the alternate theories of how the universe started and then pretended they were prevailing thought?

According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago,[2][3] which is thus considered the age of the Universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

What about Berkeley...is their cosmology department good enough for you?

Big Bang Theory
The widely held belief that the Universe began in a fiery explosion, 10-15 billion years ago. The cosmic microwave background, big bang nucleosynthesis, and the observed Hubble expansion of the Universe are considered proof of the big bang theory.
For more on big bang cosmology, check out this primer.
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/GlossaryA_E.htm#Big_Bang


At this point, I suspect you will decide the Arkleseisure is your best option and run with it.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Well since abiogenesis isn't really a Scientific theory and more like a hypothesis, and evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of Life, then yes..



Yes I did know this, but that only happens in Space. We're talking about Life on Earth the last time I checked..

Unless you're trying to tell me that Life originated in Space o_O
Every last atom in our bodies, on the earth, the air we breath, etc... originated in space. We are all quite literally made up of star dust.

Also, unless you can show one instance of inorganic matter and chemicals self combining to form into a living cell, then admit what you said about "trillions of chemical reactions and environmental factors" eventually leading to a cell is purely hypothetical.

People have been attempting to do just that for many decades now under lab conditions, and insofar, they have utterly failed..

There is no hard evidence whatsoever that Life can arise from inorganic matter...
I have seen a few experiments that have at least led to the building blocks of life (RNA I think), I will try and find them for you. I am almost positive that it was RNA because I remember them making a big deal out of the information you spoke of.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
First, congradulations on just blindly copying the competing "theories" from wikipedia...though you do show a decided lack of understanding about what which you blindly copied.



String theory? Which of the plethora of models do you suggest is the correct one? Really, that is what you got? Your link also does not say anothing about the start of the universe, and it cannot, since the multitude of competing string theories all describe the structure of the existing universe.



This is not even a valid scientific theory, as it is not falsifiable. From your own link (did you even read these before posting them?):






This one assumes the brane model must be true.



Branes again...fail is your middle name, eh?




You forgot the big one, which is just as likely as the branes you are so entranced by. The one where the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Grean Green Arkleseisure.

But in seriousness, if you are going to pretend to be smart, you do need to read your own links.
It seems you need remedial training in reading comprehension. It is YOUR burden to show that the universe has a beginning. The existence of unfalsified cosmological models that describe a universe without a beginning demonstrate that it is not known that the universe has such a beginning. You are invited to demonstrate your belief that the universe began and thereby falsify these models. Be sure to send it along to the Nobel committee in Oslo, too. Fucking dumbass.




Here you go. This is where you start invoking the magic man who makes things stop being real:


http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32994405&postcount=595
Liar. Pointing out that something cannot be logically excluded does not equal believing that thing to exist, you fucking piece of shit. I've pointed this it before and you continue to perpetuate these blatant lies. Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

Here is where this magic man makes you believe the universe does not exist:


http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32998387&postcount=615
Go ahead and show me how "did not begin to exist" equals "does not exist". Let's see it.


Breathe. In. Out. Go to your happy place and dial the insults back - way back.
admin allisolm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It seems you need remedial training in reading comprehension. It is YOUR burden to show that the universe has a beginning.
I did, it is called the big bang. Being shown this makes you mad, and you are now also cursing up a storm in frustration at being exposed. Be careful, you are quicly moving into the excessively vitriolic category Perknose says you must stay away from.

Liar. Pointing out that something cannot be logically excluded does not equal believing that thing to exist, you fucking piece of shit. I've pointed this it before and you continue to perpetuate these blatant lies. Fuck you, you fucking fuck.


Go ahead and show me how "did not begin to exist" equals "does not exist". Let's see it.
:D According to you, any evidence I show is just a supernatural illusion. You really are making it hard for JKing to take the mantle of Forum Jester from you. You must love the gingle gingle of the bells on your hat and shoe tips.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
NASA is a pretty good source for things about the universe, wouldn't you say? Here is what NASA says:


http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/
Uhh

Or how about wikipedia, the place you blindly copied the alternate theories of how the universe started and then pretended they were prevailing thought?

According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago,[2][3] which is thus considered the age of the Universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

What about Berkeley...is their cosmology department good enough for you?


http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/GlossaryA_E.htm#Big_Bang


At this point, I suspect you will decide the Arkleseisure is your best option and run with it.
You don't realize that nobody doubts that there was a big bang. The fact is that there is an event horizon bring which we do not know if anything or nothing exists. That is why it isn't known if the universe has a beginning it not, regardless of what the popularizations will tell you.

The fact is you CANNOT show that the universe has a beginning, despite your dishonest attempts to showdown your assumption into the discussion. Just tuck your task between your legs and go. We all have a low enough opinion of you already
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Very new ground indeed. The subject of dark matter has fascinated me since the moment I heard of it. I lack some of the basic understanding of the thinking around it but I think that dark matter, energy, matter and anti-matter could be products of one another. That they are able to "co-exist" in an unbalanced equilibrium.
I don't think anyone has the basic understanding. Not too long ago it was accepted fact that the universe's expansion was slowing; all credible experiments showed this. Then we launched a BAT (big ass telescope) into space and discovered that the universe's rate of expansion is actually increasing, so theoretical physicists and astrophysicists simply flipped dark matter from having a weak gravitational attraction to having a gravitational repulsion. Having a very basic quality nonchalantly flip 180 degrees is the definition of a near-total lack of understanding. There are currently some interesting experiments though; I suspect things will look quite different a couple decades from now.

IMO, science is something ALL religious people should embrace and advance. There are two great paths to better understand the Creator. The first is through His written and oral Word, the second is by better understanding what He created.

Religion is the first path, science is the second, and all those who want to vastly increase their understanding of the Creator should follow both paths.
The second has one vast advantage - no people inserting their own biases and agenda. Want to feel G-d? Pet a dog. Hug a tree. Or look at very small slices of one through a very powerful microscope.
 

RampantAndroid

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2004
6,591
3
81
Be sure to send it along to the Nobel committee in Oslo, too. Fucking dumbass.

Liar. Pointing out that something cannot be logically excluded does not equal believing that thing to exist, you fucking piece of shit. I've pointed this it before and you continue to perpetuate these blatant lies. Fuck you, you fucking fuck.
Doesn't this go against the insults rule?
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
I don't think anyone has the basic understanding. Not too long ago it was accepted fact that the universe's expansion was slowing; all credible experiments showed this. Then we launched a BAT (big ass telescope) into space and discovered that the universe's rate of expansion is actually increasing, so theoretical physicists and astrophysicists simply flipped dark matter from having a weak gravitational attraction to having a gravitational repulsion. Having a very basic quality nonchalantly flip 180 degrees is the definition of a near-total lack of understanding. There are currently some interesting experiments though; I suspect things will look quite different a couple decades from now.


The second has one vast advantage - no people inserting their own biases and agenda. Want to feel G-d? Pet a dog. Hug a tree. Or look at very small slices of one through a very powerful microscope.
Wasn't it Einstein that said (paraphrase): "G-d is merely the sum total of laws that govern all matter in our universe."?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You don't realize that nobody doubts that there was a big bang. The fact is that there is an event horizon bring which we do not know if anything or nothing exists. That is why it isn't known if the universe has a beginning it not, regardless of what the popularizations will tell you.

The fact is you CANNOT show that the universe has a beginning, despite your dishonest attempts to showdown your assumption into the discussion. Just tuck your task between your legs and go. We all have a low enough opinion of you already
The big bang theory says the universe started with the big bang - hence why we have an age to the universe. Having an age means there is a zero point.

I realize you think you know more about cosmology than NASA, but that is simply hubris. No one else thinks you do. You need to get rid of that magic man who alters the posts when you read them...he is not doing you any favors.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Wasn't it Einstein that said (paraphrase): "G-d is merely the sum total of laws that govern all matter in our universe."?
Probably, but Einstein put limitations on the limitless and placed natural boundaries on the supernatural. :)
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
He is sad that I am a devout religious person who also believes that science is an awesome thing and that there is no problem with the theory of evolution (though it still needs work - but everyone admits that).
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
The big bang theory says the universe started with the big bang - hence why we have an age to the universe.
False. We have an age from the event horizon of the Big Bang. Nobody is sure what, if anything, is beyond that.

Having an age means there is a zero point.
Do you think that anybody has any evidence that there is a state of "no universe" anywhere in our history? Because that's what you need to identify a beginning -- one point where it doesn't exist, and one point where it does. We do not have any evidence of the former.

Where did the universe not exist? Where is the state of "nothing" from which the universe came?

I realize you think you know more about cosmology than NASA, but that is simply hubris. No one else thinks you do. You need to get rid of that magic man who alters the posts when you read them...he is not doing you any favors.
You are as wrong as you have ever been.

You also still haven't shown how "didn't begin to exist" is equivalent to "does not exist," either. When will you answer that question?
 
Last edited:

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
I don't think anyone has the basic understanding. Not too long ago it was accepted fact that the universe's expansion was slowing; all credible experiments showed this. Then we launched a BAT (big ass telescope) into space and discovered that the universe's rate of expansion is actually increasing, so theoretical physicists and astrophysicists simply flipped dark matter from having a weak gravitational attraction to having a gravitational repulsion. Having a very basic quality nonchalantly flip 180 degrees is the definition of a near-total lack of understanding. There are currently some interesting experiments though; I suspect things will look quite different a couple decades from now.
Not quite. In ye olde days there wasn't any experimental evidence to show the rate of expansion was slowing, it was merely assumed by what we knew of gravity at the time. The thought was that because gravity is attractive and even though the strength of gravity declines greatly over distance, it is still a nonzero amount, it will eventually serve to bring any two objects together not being acted upon by an outside force. That outside forces are minimal in the larger universe, especially over large spans of time, it was assumed this attraction would serve to eventually pull the whole universe back together. Once we had the capacity to actually carry out experiments, we determined much to our surprise that, as you said, not only is the universe not slowing, it is expanding apart which implies a negative pressure on space, which is called dark energy.

Dark matter is something else, something meant to address a different problem. The universe is much, much heavier than the stuff we can see. For example, with galaxies spinning at their observed rate they should be flying apart; too much angular momentum in their arms. They aren't, and what that tells us is there is a much more intense force of gravity than just the visible matter in the galaxy to increase the mass and thus increase the gravitational attraction.

What's more, we have actually seen dark matter, kind of. After galaxy collisions, all sorts of galactic crap gets thrown everywhere; dust, stars, planets, and dark matter. When observing the remains of a galactic collision, we have discovered at least one region of space that produces a gravitational lense effect despite being observably empty. Gravitational lensing, for those not familiar with the term, is where gravity in a region bends light, causing light traveling past it to curve inward towards the gravity well. Like the lense on a camera, it will create a focal point, where, over great distances, light will converge which allows us to see things behind other things. What this all means is that there is an empty region of space with the mass of a galaxy; one of the destroyed galaxy's dark matter halos.

Now, don't get me wrong, we still have a lot we don't understand about them and we are learning more all the time. That said, a little perspective is called for; we aren't marking our maps of the galaxy "here be dragons" either.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,056
859
126
Well I did provide a brief summary of the current hypothesis how life arose ON Earth and how the complex "code" in DNA/RNA could have occurred through natural processes. Did you read it
Yeah I must have missed that one..

I'm sorry your impatient and want answees now but figuring this stuff out takes time. You can go ahead and believe whatever you want but just realize your probably wrong.
You admit you haven't even figured it out yet, and yet you realize I'm probably wrong? LOL o_O

As for being innumerate, well your comment about Time being the new god and the odds stacked against me basically prove my point. If I gave you a powerball ticket for each organic chemical reaction that has happened on Earth you'd have won it a million times over.
Even if you are generous with the odds, the odds are still staggering. And to think, such a thing would have to happen not once, but countless times over the hundreds of millions of years..

As for me proving this, it's not my field. I'm just relaying what I remember reading about this.
Not my field either, but it's still interesting to debate about :cool:
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,056
859
126
Show me one example of those calculations, with results.
In principle, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1,050 are thought of as having a zero probability. Since an average-sized protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids with 12 different types of amino acids, this protein can be arranged in 10,300 different ways, which is 10 followed by 300 zeros. Since 10,300 far exceeds 1,050, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule by random chance is zero. Molecular biologist Harold Blum concludes that from the mathematical perspective, probability of a protein autonomously assimilating by chance is zero:​

“The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.”​
Harold Morowitz, distinguished Yale biophysicist and former master of Pierson College, wrote in his book, Energy Flow in Biology, that the evolution of the theoretically simplest cell, requiring no less than about 124 proteins, would be an incredible probability of 1:10 to the 340,000,000 power (Morowitz, H.J., Energy Flow in Biology, Academic Press, New York, 1968, p. 99). This is not probability. This is a calculation of improbability, or better yet, impossibility.


Evolutionist H.P. Yockey calculated the chance appearance of a molecule involved in cellular respiration and wrote, “With regard to the appearance of a single molecule of the cytochrome c family, even the deus ex machina needs 1036 [chances] with just the right conditions [and] 1 billion years... One who finds the chance appearance of cytochrome c a credible event must have the faith of Job.” (Yockey, H.P., A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by information Theory, J. Theor. Biol, 1977, 67:393,396).
There are others as well to be sure.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,056
859
126
Name one. Seriously, I'll wait. Give me a single law of science life violates.
First off, I didn't say it violated any law. I said it defied them.. What I specifically meant was, that life forms have self organizational properties that cannot be explained by mere physics and chemistry.

The best example I can think of, is gene expression. While living creatures are made up of atoms and molecules just like everything else, the whole process of gene expression is EXTREMELY organized and ordered.

In fact, DNA base sequencing is often compared to a language, and not just because of the information content, but because of how it depends on a specific order for it to accomplish it's intended purpose.

Physics and chemistry may be able to determine the full spectrum of combinations and bonds of these chemicals, but they cannot explain their exceptionally ordered nature anymore than they can explain the words I'm writing right now in reply to you....which also depends on a highly specific order for them to make sense.

Show me the proof. I've seen a lot of them too, but never one that didn't display a profound ignorance of math and/or physics.
See my last reply to Cerpin Taxt, as I listed a few of them.. Though I have to say I think it's highly ridiculous for you to utterly reject their analyses and claim they are ignorant of math and physics just because you don't agree with their conclusion.

To the point, they possess PhDs in their chosen fields, whether it be mathematics, biophysics, evolutionary biology etc and have forgotten more about maths, chemistry and physics than you will likely ever know..
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,056
859
126
Every last atom in our bodies, on the earth, the air we breath, etc... originated in space. We are all quite literally made up of star dust.
Yes we are. But living creatures possess massive amounts of complex information as well as Consciousness, which make us stand apart from inorganic matter.

I have seen a few experiments that have at least led to the building blocks of life (RNA I think), I will try and find them for you. I am almost positive that it was RNA because I remember them making a big deal out of the information you spoke of.
I know about these experiments. But just remember, they are merely building blocks and as such, don't really do much to prove anything. If anything, it demonstrates the obstacles involved when it comes to attempting to explain how such complex chemicals could have occurred naturally.....without intelligence involved.
 

Larries

Member
Mar 3, 2008
96
0
0
Just wondering, what does big bang has to do with a dad disowning his gay son? Guess both are talking about something in the universe?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY