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

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
410
126
As of right now, science gives time and our universe a starting point.
No, it doesn't. The Big Bang singularity is behind an horizon. We do not know what, if anything, exists on the other side of the horizon. We only know that the horizon is as far as we can see.

When you see the sun appear over the horizon, does it lead you to believe that the sun is beginning to exist? Your argument is equivalent to defending the claim that the sun begins to exist every day that it appears over the horizon.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,136
3,834
126
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

The nature of time is an ongoing puzzle cosmologist grapple with. There is no proof that time is even real or that it is required for the universe to exist. The absence of proof other than what cybrsage's stomach tells him, is what makes his instance on his version of common sense so compelling to him but so scientifically ridiculous. He is one of those annoying folk for whom certainty is more important than humility and wonder. The fact that we seem to feel there's something called the universe and yet can't even prove the existence of time should tell even a rather ordinary mind that the universe sure doesn't need proof of time to exist or that the absence of time means it doesn't. If you can't even prove time exists then no time based arguments about anything mean jack shit.

But you can bet your ass that dunderhead will be right back with more denial.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does. You really need to get rid of the magic man and start to read. You are quite wrong in saying the zero point of time is not the start. Start is a time based word and cannot exist without time. Before is a time based word and cannot exist without time. Without time, there is no before...NOTHING in our universe came "before" time, for it is simply not possible to have a before time started.

Stop making yourself look so foolish.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
More lies.


They remain in this thread for anyone that cares to find them.

That is what I thought. You are one of those people who lie and say they showed facts but refuse to actually show the facts. I know what happened, you typed them out but the magic man you hang around with made them vanish from your computer before you clicked Submit Reply. That must be it, right?

Seriously, you are showing yourself to be a fool. Stop while you have any dignity left.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,136
3,834
126
Some people can be quite amazing. Imagine arguing that the zero point of time is the start of the universe and then saying that 'Nothing in the universe came before it', especially when vacuum is the word physicists use for nothing and the physicists say it's just teaming with shit.
Add to that the fact there's no proof that time even exists and well you know

But the conservative mind doesn't need facts to make up shit, any more apparently then the vacuum does, because given the vacuum in their heads, shit just comes pouring out.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Ah, good old Moonbeam. When faced with being wrong, he launches into idiocy. While it is expected, since it is done quite often, it is no less sad of an event. :(
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,136
3,834
126
Ah, good old Moonbeam. When faced with being wrong, he launches into idiocy. While it is expected, since it is done quite often, it is no less sad of an event. :(
A perfect example of what launching into idiocy looks like, your argument totally destroyed, you launch into personal attack while calling the other person sad. Scientists can't prove that time even exists but you fabricate a mountain of garbage based on the notion that time is real, therefore the universe couldn't exist before time but all the nothing in the universe did exist before time, in other words the nothing from which time sprang existed before time did, still insisting that nothing can exist before time except of course for the nothing that did exist before time. And I'm the idiot. hehehehehehe
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
410
126
Yes, it does.
No, it doesn't.

You really need to get rid of the magic man and start to read.
You need to quit having sexual fantasies of children.


You are quite wrong in saying the zero point of time is not the start. Start is a time based word and cannot exist without time. Before is a time based word and cannot exist without time. Without time, there is no before...NOTHING in our universe came "before" time, for it is simply not possible to have a before time started.
Time is not the universe, and the universe is not constrained by the inadequacies of our language.

Regardless, time and space are not the only dimensions with which physicists and cosmologists work, and I never suggested that "before time" was a valid reference. It remains that the beginning of time is not to be confused for a beginning of the universe, like you continue to do in your ignorance.

Stop making yourself look so foolish.
Physician, heal thyself!
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
410
126
That is what I thought.
I've yet to be convinced that thinking is something of which you're capable.

You are one of those people who lie and say they showed facts but refuse to actually show the facts.
They remain in this thread. No need to repeat them.

I know what happened, you typed them out but the magic man you hang around with made them vanish from your computer before you clicked Submit Reply. That must be it, right?
Does your wife say thank you when you stop beating her?

Seriously, you are showing yourself to be a fool. Stop while you have any dignity left.
There are any number of unanswered questions I've put to you that you've completely ignored -- answers to which would highlight your ignorance and dishonesty, so it is little surprise you'd evade them.

For example, how can it be true that Brane cosmology is unfalsifiable when it would be falsified if the Big Bang were in fact the beginning of the universe? You yourself pointed out that Brane cosmology was unfalsifiable. How can that be? Did someone just forget to tell the cosmologists? Shouldn't you be writing them a letter, post haste?

Please, do explain.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY