Discussion:
BIg Bang Energy
(too old to reply)
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-13 01:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.

Mitchell Raemsch
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-02-13 01:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Accelerating expansion is accelerating Entropy
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-13 01:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
Accelerating expansion is accelerating Entropy
Energy entropy is spreading out energy.
It is not a correct cosmology.
David Waite
2018-02-13 04:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing and the only thing that is conserved about "dark energy" that is conserved is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
David Waite
2018-02-13 04:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-13 04:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
David Waite
2018-02-13 04:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-13 06:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
David Waite
2018-02-13 06:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-13 06:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
No its not. Show the lensing order David before you speak.
If its everywhere how could everything be gravity lensed?
Dark matter is not even needed for a correct cosmology.

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-02-13 07:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
No its not. Show the lensing order David before you speak....
Yes it is. Do the search before you speak,
https://www.google.com/search?q=dark+matter+gravitational+lenz+map&rlz=1C1AOHY_enUS708US708&oq=dark+matter+gravitational+lenz+map&aqs=chrome..69i57.11969j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-13 07:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
No its not. Show the lensing order David before you speak....
Yes it is. Do the search before you speak,
https://www.google.com/search?q=dark+matter+gravitational+lenz+map&rlz=1C1AOHY_enUS708US708&oq=dark+matter+gravitational+lenz+map&aqs=chrome..69i57.11969j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
If its everywhere there's no net affect.
David Waite
2018-02-13 07:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
No its not. Show the lensing order David before you speak....
Yes it is. Do the search before you speak,
https://www.google.com/search?q=dark+matter+gravitational+lenz+map&rlz=1C1AOHY_enUS708US708&oq=dark+matter+gravitational+lenz+map&aqs=chrome..69i57.11969j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
If its everywhere there's no net affect.
Its not. Dark matter is clumped around galaxies. Neither would your statement be a logical one. For example, dark energy is everywhere uniform and does have the effect of a separating acceleration.
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-13 07:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
In other words - as what you see doesn't fit your
prety little theories, you imagine invisible matter
to fill the holes in them.
You could use elves and dwarves as well.
David Waite
2018-02-13 07:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
In other words - as what you see doesn't fit your
prety little theories, you imagine invisible matter
to fill the holes in them.
You could use elves and dwarves as well.
No, in other words, the parameters of the theory are observed in nature. And you're the one that believes in the supernatural.
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-13 12:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
In other words - as what you see doesn't fit your
prety little theories, you imagine invisible matter
to fill the holes in them.
You could use elves and dwarves as well.
No, in other words, the parameters of the theory are observed in nature.
Buhahahahahaha.
Post by David Waite
And you're the one that believes in the supernatural.
And a lie, as expected from fanatic, lying trash.
David Waite
2018-02-13 12:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
In other words - as what you see doesn't fit your
prety little theories, you imagine invisible matter
to fill the holes in them.
You could use elves and dwarves as well.
No, in other words, the parameters of the theory are observed in nature.
Buhahahahahaha.
Post by David Waite
And you're the one that believes in the supernatural.
And a lie, as expected from fanatic, lying trash.
So you're arguing from incredulity and then lying. You believe in much more insane supernatural crap than elves and dwarves. You believe in life after death. You don't get any more insane than that except to propose that Gods are real or more insane yet that there is only one. Do you deny that this describes you?
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-13 13:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
In other words - as what you see doesn't fit your
prety little theories, you imagine invisible matter
to fill the holes in them.
You could use elves and dwarves as well.
No, in other words, the parameters of the theory are observed in nature.
Buhahahahahaha.
Post by David Waite
And you're the one that believes in the supernatural.
And a lie, as expected from fanatic, lying trash.
So you're arguing from incredulity and then lying. You believe in much more insane supernatural crap than elves and dwarves. You believe in life after death.
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
David Waite
2018-02-13 13:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
In other words - as what you see doesn't fit your
prety little theories, you imagine invisible matter
to fill the holes in them.
You could use elves and dwarves as well.
No, in other words, the parameters of the theory are observed in nature.
Buhahahahahaha.
Post by David Waite
And you're the one that believes in the supernatural.
And a lie, as expected from fanatic, lying trash.
So you're arguing from incredulity and then lying. You believe in much more insane supernatural crap than elves and dwarves. You believe in life after death.
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
Yes you do. You're the idiot masses.
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-13 13:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
In other words - as what you see doesn't fit your
prety little theories, you imagine invisible matter
to fill the holes in them.
You could use elves and dwarves as well.
No, in other words, the parameters of the theory are observed in nature.
Buhahahahahaha.
Post by David Waite
And you're the one that believes in the supernatural.
And a lie, as expected from fanatic, lying trash.
So you're arguing from incredulity and then lying. You believe in much more insane supernatural crap than elves and dwarves. You believe in life after death.
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
Yes you do. You're the idiot masses.
:)
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
David Waite
2018-02-13 13:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
In other words - as what you see doesn't fit your
prety little theories, you imagine invisible matter
to fill the holes in them.
You could use elves and dwarves as well.
No, in other words, the parameters of the theory are observed in nature.
Buhahahahahaha.
Post by David Waite
And you're the one that believes in the supernatural.
And a lie, as expected from fanatic, lying trash.
So you're arguing from incredulity and then lying. You believe in much more insane supernatural crap than elves and dwarves. You believe in life after death.
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
Yes you do. You're the idiot masses.
:)
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
So you are going to pretend that the pro Christianity rebut response of yours "or the unbelieving" was not written by you? Do you really want to do that when I can provide a link?
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-13 14:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
In other words - as what you see doesn't fit your
prety little theories, you imagine invisible matter
to fill the holes in them.
You could use elves and dwarves as well.
No, in other words, the parameters of the theory are observed in nature.
Buhahahahahaha.
Post by David Waite
And you're the one that believes in the supernatural.
And a lie, as expected from fanatic, lying trash.
So you're arguing from incredulity and then lying. You believe in much more insane supernatural crap than elves and dwarves. You believe in life after death.
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
Yes you do. You're the idiot masses.
:)
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
So you are going to pretend that the pro Christianity rebut response of yours "or the unbelieving" was not written by you? Do you really want to do that when I can provide a link?
You know, David, as common sense prejudices doesn't limit
you, you can conclude anything you want to from everything.
You can conclude that your Shit is true and valid from the
experiments or you can conclude I believe a god from what
I wrote. I don't. You're an idiot, so your conclusions are
your problem and don't bother me at all.
David Waite
2018-02-13 14:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
In other words - as what you see doesn't fit your
prety little theories, you imagine invisible matter
to fill the holes in them.
You could use elves and dwarves as well.
No, in other words, the parameters of the theory are observed in nature.
Buhahahahahaha.
Post by David Waite
And you're the one that believes in the supernatural.
And a lie, as expected from fanatic, lying trash.
So you're arguing from incredulity and then lying. You believe in much more insane supernatural crap than elves and dwarves. You believe in life after death.
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
Yes you do. You're the idiot masses.
:)
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
So you are going to pretend that the pro Christianity rebut response of yours "or the unbelieving" was not written by you? Do you really want to do that when I can provide a link?
You know, David, as common sense prejudices doesn't limit
you, ...
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/sci.physics.relativity/Or$20the$20unbelieving|sort:date/sci.physics.relativity/rnS2Po42IeE/3zq8fiHoAgAJ
Scroll up to who made the pro Christianity argument, "Or the unbelieving". It was you, you lying little religionist scumbag.
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-13 16:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy would begin at the Big Bang and would be a conserved quantity
spread out everywhere in the universe.
It would thin out as the universe expands. It would not be able to
drive accelerated expansion only a slowing expansion.
It fails as a cosmology.
Mitchell Raemsch
i already explained this to you. The thing, and the only thing, that is conserved about "dark energy" is that the cosmological constant is a constant. Just because you give it the silly name "dark energy", doesn't make it an actual conserved energy, and a positive cosmological constant in a nearly flat universe has the effect of eternal accelerated expansion consistent with the universe we observe whether you like it or not.
Your cosmology is a failing cosmology David.
Its not "mine". Its standard. And in what prediction about how nature should look is it failing?
David, poor idiot, if your cosmology predicted how nature
should look correctly, you wouldn't need this invisible
dark matter, would you?
But dark matter is observed in nature via gravitational lensing, so it does.
In other words - as what you see doesn't fit your
prety little theories, you imagine invisible matter
to fill the holes in them.
You could use elves and dwarves as well.
No, in other words, the parameters of the theory are observed in nature.
Buhahahahahaha.
Post by David Waite
And you're the one that believes in the supernatural.
And a lie, as expected from fanatic, lying trash.
So you're arguing from incredulity and then lying. You believe in much more insane supernatural crap than elves and dwarves. You believe in life after death.
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
Yes you do. You're the idiot masses.
:)
No, I don't. You're imagining and enchanting the reality. As
expected from a fanatic idiot followeing a mad ideology.
So you are going to pretend that the pro Christianity rebut response of yours "or the unbelieving" was not written by you? Do you really want to do that when I can provide a link?
You know, David, as common sense prejudices doesn't limit
you, ...
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/sci.physics.relativity/Or$20the$20unbelieving|sort:date/sci.physics.relativity/rnS2Po42IeE/3zq8fiHoAgAJ
Scroll up to who made the pro Christianity argument, "Or the unbelieving". It was you, you lying little religionist scumbag.
You know, David, as common sense prejudices doesn't limit
you, you can conclude anything you want to from everything.
You can conclude that your Shit is true and valid from the
experiments or you can conclude I believe a god from what
I wrote. I don't. You're an idiot, so your conclusions are
your problem and don't bother me at all.

Loading...