Before the Big Bang, was there an unspecified volume of spatial points ?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Mohat, Mar 24, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mohat Banned Banned

    Messages:
    66
    Well quite clearly you did not know advanced Big Bang theory that provides the prequel of events , who is clueless ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Nor do you, liar.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mohat Banned Banned

    Messages:
    66
    I have already explained to you the prequel of events , if you cant accept that q1/R^n and q2/R^n make up the CBMR that is your problem .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    No you didn't explain.
    You just posted some made up crap that you can't substantiate.
    More bullshit, liar.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2021
  8. Mohat Banned Banned

    Messages:
    66
    Ok , why don't you explain it to us all then , I am sure you have touched many young minds with your physics , come on impress us ?
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    And another deflection from the liar.
    You'll try anything to avoid admitting that you can't substantiate one single shred of your made up drivel, won't you?
     
  10. Mohat Banned Banned

    Messages:
    66
    Any given point cannot be created or destroyed is self evidence
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Is it?
     
  12. Mohat Banned Banned

    Messages:
    66
    Obviously !

    I have observed nuclear explosions and the space isn't effected .
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Only on video, so that really wouldn't count as "observing".
    The word is "affected". And how would you know that "space wasn't affected"?
     
  14. Mohat Banned Banned

    Messages:
    66
    The space was still there after the blast and continues to be there to this day !

    Additionally I have presented the question to various places and it is impossible to even think of a way to destroy space .

    Give me one way to destroy space or you have to agree in the axiom
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Not the same as "unaffected".
    It's not up to me to "disprove". You're the one that made the claim therefore it's up to you to support it.

    So you admit that you haven't actually "observed nuclear explosions"?
     
  16. Mohat Banned Banned

    Messages:
    66
    I have observed mushrooms

    It isn't up to me to prove space cannot be destroyed , space not being destroying proves itself . Even the Suns energy cannot destroy space .

    It is self evident , an axiom .
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Mushrooms aren't nuclear explosions.
    According to you, at least.
    According to you, at least.
    But then again, we know you're a liar.
     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,696
    If you are making the claim yes it is up to you

    When Virtual Particals pop into existence in empty space does the
    • empty space get destroyed? or
    • pushed aside to another location?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Mohat Banned Banned

    Messages:
    66
    Neither

    q1/R^n

    q2/R^n


    Opposite charged electrostatic point charges popping into existence before they are finally annihilated by F<E . I say finally because there is a two stage process that happens in an almost instant duration to create the w= E/R^n
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    More made up bullshit.
     
  21. Mohat Banned Banned

    Messages:
    66
    Based on Dirac's work and Coulombs work ! You really need to think .
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    But you've already comprehensively shown that you don't understand Coulomb's work (and I'm willing to bet that anything you think you understand about Dirac's is deeply flawed), ergo: made up bullshit.
     
  23. Michael Sally Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1
    1. Are you trying to say that a photons speed of travel is a consequence of a force and the force is an attractive force like gravity ?

    2. Are you saying that this attractive force is caused by a state of magnitude , of energy ?

    3. Are you saying that light is separated throughout the Universe by this state ?

    I think he is saying that the speed of light is consequence of an external force and this force is something to do with the magnitude of energy .
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page