Random logic?

Originally posted by royalchicken
Whilst plagiarizing, you research like no other. Why not channel these skills usefully?

Where do I plaigarize?

I can only assume you couldn't find anything that wasn't laughable.

Originally posted by Darfius
Where do I plaigarize?

I can only assume you couldn't find anything that wasn't laughable.

Actually, no, I know people who regularly attend lectures on the subject.

Originally posted by Darfius
How could God be both within the universe and claim to have made it? Looks like you answered your own premisely impossible question, yes. Great job.

silly man. besides having said I answered my question, what you thought was my question wasn't it.
I asked only if god was flat . did not make any request for the location. and it's not my problem if you cannot understand a simple premise like the degree of flatness.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Possibly a Big Crunch. Possibly the singularity from which the Bang originated existed forever.

If you think God caused the BB, what caused God?

Big Colliding Brane Theory or Ekpyrotic theory is the forefront of cosmology presently, Superstrings ya know.

We know the Universe was still expanding 8 billion years ago. we really cant know if it still is.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Actually, no, I know people who regularly attend lectures on the subject.

Then ask them to help you out. You're drowning here.

Originally posted by frogstomp
silly man. besides having said I answered my question, what you thought was my question wasn't it.
I asked only if god was flat . did not make any request for the location. and it's not my problem if you cannot understand a simple premise like the degree of flatness.

Are you under the influence of something? Go back and reveiw your question and answer.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Big Colliding Brane Theory or Ekpyrotic theory is the forefront of cosmology presently, Superstrings ya know.

We know the Universe was still expanding 8 billion years ago. we really cant know if it still is.

Elaborate on these and help royal.

Originally posted by Darfius
Are you under the influence of something? Go back and reveiw your question and answer.

REVIEW THIS :

the universe is pretty flat . though it's more curved than god would have to be.
God would have to be perfectly flat,, looks like I answered my own question. thanks anyways guys.


the question was " Is god flat? "

admit your lack of understanding , you silly man.

Originally posted by Darfius
Elaborate on these and help royal.

It all starts with the inadequacy of the prefered inflation model. So we are trying relativistic quantum gravity which of course has trouble with the dilaton field.

As you know that a massless field coupling to gravity solely through its kinetic energy would be an anti-inflation influence.

the Calubi-Yau space of a Horava-Witten M-theory world ( not a cosmological model but a demonstration of superstring theory) is a forerunner to superstring Brane theories

the lastest is giant brane collision or Ekpyrotic theory. better known as the BIG SPLATT

and its postulation of a third brane.. loose between the two bounding branes of our 4th dimensional Universe,
does that clear it up for you and RC ?


my typos as getting worse

btw

since : when incoming and outgoing states are infinitely separated in time, they behave as free noninteracting states.

not only does that give a problem to string and particle theories it gives major problems to any first cause creation theory
infact it gives serious event horizon problems to the premise that something outside our universe could create anything in it ,, as well as see here and perish too does the idea it ever got here,

Originally posted by frogstomp
REVIEW THIS :

the universe is pretty flat . though it's more curved than god would have to be.
God would have to be perfectly flat,, looks like I answered my own question. thanks anyways guys.


the question was " Is god flat? "

admit your lack of understanding , you silly man.

Gibberish

Originally posted by frogstomp
It all starts with the inadequacy of the prefered inflation model. So we are trying relativistic quantum gravity which of course has trouble with the dilaton field.

As you know that a massless field coupling to gravity solely through its kinetic energy would be an anti-inflation influence.

the Calubi-Yau spac ...[text shortened]... verse,
does that clear it up for you and RC ?


my typos as getting worse

More gibberish. What's the difference between extra universes and God? Actually, God makes a helluva lot more sense.

Originally posted by frogstomp
btw

since : when incoming and outgoing states are infinitely separated in time, they behave as free noninteracting states.

not only does that give a problem to string and particle theories it gives major problems to any first cause creation theory
infact it gives serious event horizon problems to the premise ...[text shortened]... ing in it ,, as well as see here and perish too does the idea it ever got here,

Please someone tell me frog isn't constraining God with the laws of physics that God created.

Originally posted by Darfius
Gibberish...

and

Originally posted by Darfius
More gibberish. What's the difference between extra universes and God? Actually, God makes a helluva lot more sense.

Translation: I can't argue this point because I don't understand it,
so I will cast this argument from the thread and my mind with a
wave of my hand and a dismissive and superior tone in my post.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
So it's not faith to believe the singularity existed forever?

I don't. I don't believe anything except that I don't have enough information to make a good guess.

If one did believe that the singularity existed forever without much evidence, then yes, it would be faith.