A response to thatonegirl2288
Uploader Comments (askegg)
Video Responses
All Comments (98)
-
1:11 yeah? well you're a cock.
-
The universe could only have arisen from an eternal state, OUTSIDE' itself.
The eternal source cannot be governed by materialistic properties,i.e. it must be composed of non-material properties.
We observe 'information' & we 'reform' information via intelligence. Intelligence is the only viable source capable of existing prior to matter & energy.
A good example of this is within the properties of a photon=non-material information.
-
....so nobody else can use 'this same mathematecal model once its going to be used against your position?
No, it doesn't work that way. Our natural laws do not break down at the quantum level. The only thing that breaks down at that level is your eternal materialistic hypothesis , i.e., universe breaks down to a 'finite' point, but you cannot accept that, so you 'forbid' anything else from occurring within this quantum level.
-
Therefore, space-time actually must have a 'beginning non-quantization' state, i.e., it breaks down to a non-quantization state, which implies that space-time breaks down to a finite point, which eventually breaks down to a state of nothingness.
So, I guess violating our physical laws, i.e, Conservation of Energy by creating 'something from a state of nothingness" is a better solution?
You cannot use the mathematecal models in order to get to the point u wish and then 'burn it' ...
-
So the obvious problem then emerges. If, space-time is quantized via units, then one planck length per planck second equals speed of light within a vacuum, correct?
Obviously not. So, the moment time began, that created a 'progressive act of motion' via time, and that act of motion NEVER STOPPED within planck time.
-
Time does NOT stop within the planck scale. The moment 'motion' arose, time 'BEGAN."
Planck time is about 10-34 seconds AFTER the big bang. Seriously, "do you really believe that space itself can be divided into bits of an area? Time does NOT stop at planck time. Once it began it never stopped.
Planck second = smallest unit of time.
Planck length = the smallest known unit of space.
-
Now, in regard to the photon. The photon is one of your fundamental elementary particleds, i.,e it cannot be broken down any further.
Therefore, the 'photon' is the particle which you must begin with. Again, photons have no mass, they are composed of 'information plus velocity" equals kinetic energy,i.e, kinetic information.
Where does 'information' come from PRIOR to any 'volume' equals time x lengths?
Information is neither matter nor energy, it exists within itself plus kinetic work
-
You need to provide an 'eternal' state' which isn't confined by time, space, dimensions, density & mass.
A densed state= "density divided by VOLUME.
So, 'the densed state' is actually the beginning of time & lengths = non-eternal.
Time moves 'forward' from the densed state, via time x length.
Where is your eternal point within a densed state? Impossible. Density describes a volume of space already present, and THAT is not a 'dot', i.e., volumeLESS state.
VolumeLESS = no time or space.
-
Your 'densed' state has 'volume' which equals 1d x, 1dy, 1d z, & t."
The densed 'state' proves that it required 'non-eternal' properties in order to have a densed state to begin with.
You cannot BEGIN within somthing that is confined by '1d time x 1d lengths) within your densed state, and then imply that 'time & lengths' arose from the big bang itself.
-
3. One-dimensional space = 'two point' via 'two separate points' , which 'creates' SPACE in between 'two points'.
Information on the other hand can exist within a 'single point' & CAN exists PRIOR to 'two points' of a line = 1d, & 2 separated points,i.e, space, and lastly, 'two points' are used as 'motion= kinetic' energy is 'activated.'
Think about it. The only thing that exists, which & existed PRIOR to time confined properties, is 'information."
Where does it come from?
Nicely done. askegg.
It would good if you would speak in a room w/o echo, for sake of intelligibility. Many of us are not native English.
NeedsEvidence 2 years ago
Yes - I need to do something about the room's echo in general anyway.
askegg 2 years ago
I am not as happy with his refutation as I am usually with your work....not because you are mistaken just because its format/presentation was less attractive. If you are going to the Atheist conference in March I would love to have a couple of beers. Kind regards Joe
JosephPatrickMcmahon 2 years ago
I will be there and rarely refuse the offers of beer. Seems a few people did not like the red on red; it did not even occur to me when recording.
askegg 2 years ago