Big Bang ain't got no religion

-1

and back to zero you are.

http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys

Gary, once again you are picking on the mathematically challenged. That person can not understand what you are saying.
____________

We all know that gravity is one of the fundamental laws of physics.

Still we have not been able to find out whether gravity is due to the existence of one (or more) particles.

For some reason, particles which can be attributed or related to a certain or specific amount of mass are better explained than energy in its pure form, or matter which behaves in an energetic manner or exhibits some kind or type of energetic state.

Perhaps I am trying to explain or be implying something by means of making a reference to the possible existence of the so-called Higgs boson whose existence has generally been postulated by physicists?

Gravity is supposed to be a force which attracts and compresses mass. A large amount of mass within a certain perimeter or radius typically makes up either a white dwarf star, a neutron star or possibly a black hole.

The amount of mass in the Universe is constant, the Universe as an invisible medium is expanding (or inflating) on its own, making all the galaxies and galaxy clusters being part of it appear as moving apart from each other.

Still we are assuming that the Big Bang was the result of an inflation, or at least, the result of the initial Big Bang which created the Universe subsequently lead to an inflationary universe where also the notion of time plays a big role.

We should not however think of the Big Bang as an "explosion" in the regular form of way. Rather, the Big Bang is known to have stopped up for a while, but quite recently, at least in a cosmic perspective has "taken off" once again.

In addition, the more distant an object is from another in the Universe, the more quicker or speedier this "moving away from each other" process also appears to be.

Maybe we need yet another explanation from Albert Einstein's laws of general relativity in order to be able to explain these things any further? The shape of the Universe is thought by some to be flat, by others as being either positively or negatively curved.

Further comments or explanations, are please welcome.

-1

and back to zero you are.

http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys

It's interesting this individual was able to debunk Evolution because DING DING DING he just couldn't see it happening reasonably. Sorry but monkeys writing Shakespeare has nothing to do with evolution or biologic science.

This writer basically conflated two separate ideas into one

If you dig a bit there is a link to an alleged CV for the person who wrote it. Claims he has a BS philosophy, makes him an expert in mathematics I'm sure, and he claims to have a PhD, but doesn't say what that is in. Also that page says the site is damaged from a crash in 2007 and will be restored shortly.

Of course Wiki offers a formal proof of the infinite number of monkeys. Yes, to our expectation the probability is low, but if time is infinite then the probability is one or certain. Neat thing about infinities and something very hard for anyone not trained in calculus to grasp.

so large it stands next to zero? REeaalllyyy? again you talk of beliefs and not science. Dismantling a scientific proof is quite difficult. It usually takes more than a few lines and saying "See there it is, I cannot see another possible solution to a problem" as an answer. That is hardly proof positive that something is or isn't correct.

I'll point you to flat landers that still beieve that the earth is flat. they have followers. Are they correct? Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.

When you conflate to ideas into being one then you just confuse yourself into believing something that isn't proof but is an interesting philosophical argument. Math doesn't use philosophy
____________
Proud member of TSWB.

End terrorism by building a school

so large it stands next to zero? REeaalllyyy? again you talk of beliefs and not science. Dismantling a scientific proof is quite difficult. It usually takes more than a few lines and saying "See there it is, I cannot see another possible solution to a problem" as an answer. That is hardly proof positive that something is or isn't correct.

I'll point you to flat landers that still beieve that the earth is flat. they have followers. Are they correct? Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.

When you conflate to ideas into being one then you just confuse yourself into believing something that isn't proof but is an interesting philosophical argument. Math doesn't use philosophy

NARW?

Guy, as opposed to EAORW (Everything is Absolute, there is Only Right or Wrong), I suppose.

Personally, I do accept there are some absolutes out there and there are certainly some actions which can be classified as Right or Wrong (or should be seen that way by everyone (or nearly everyone anyway).

But I do reject the view that EVERYTHING is Absolute, and that EVERY act or thought is either Right or Wrong.

I perceive the inclination to see all as absolute, all as either right or wrong, as an oversimplification of reality. Making things simple is a good starting point for infants and young children as they grow up and get socialized, but as they mature, it is critical that they learn the world is a more complicated place than that.

I sense you either disagree with this or are at the very least discomfited by the implied relativism embodied by this.

ID, it is clear that you do not understand Borel's law of large numbers as applied to random chance and infinity. Borel stated that as long as a probability exists and given an infinite number of attempts the event will occur! At least that is what the link you cited states.
____________

ID, it is clear that you do not understand Borel's law of large numbers as applied to random chance and infinity. Borel stated that as long as a probability exists and given an infinite number of attempts the event will occur! At least that is what the link you cited states.

Whats a fact Jack is that them two numbers [zero and the one given at the site I posted] walk so close together that when they get up in the morn they get into the same pair of pants.

Show some understanding of the math...