Is the big bang and a supernova the same event?

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
Drewcgs11's picture
Is beginning and end not

Is beginning and end not opposites?
Is in and and out not opposites?
Is the fact that both events start to bubble before exploding not a similarity?

Deforres's picture
Are the back of my car and

Are the back of my car and the front not opposite?
Are the in and out of my car not opposite?
Is the fact that my car and this red herring are red a similarity, tovarich?

Drewcgs11's picture
"When similarity's are only

"When similarity's are only in the eye of the beholder, expecting agreements is pointless, tovarich."

I have disproven your statement sir! you obviously agree suddenly that they are in fact similarities.

Deforres's picture
As I have disproven your

As I have disproven your (unspoken) statement that similarity's alone can prove two things are the same. An eye for an eye, tovarich.

Nyarlathotep's picture
When things are similar, he

When things are similar, he thinks that supports the argument that they are the same.
When things are not similar, he thinks that supports the argument they are the same.

It's brilliant, he can't possible be wrong!

Drewcgs11's picture
I never said similarities

I never said similarities alone but play a major factor also plays a key role in evaluating information

Deforres's picture
So, tovarich, what other

So, tovarich, what other supporting evidence do you have besides your "backbone similarity's"?

Drewcgs11's picture
I never said my theory was a

I never said my theory was a absolute but a possibility which you guys have gave 0 percent chance of being true. similarities forces a theory into the conversation of being considered among other things.

Deforres's picture
"I never said my theory was

"I never said my theory was absolute"

Vs

"which i have 6 absolutes that points to the big bang and a supernova being the same event. "

I'm contesting your "absolutes, not your theory.

Drewcgs11's picture
Dualitys as well universal

Dualitys as well universal laws!

Deforres's picture
Duality and universal laws

Duality and universal laws are not the same. I have seen the former, and none of the latter. Try again, tovarich.

Drewcgs11's picture
My 6 absolutes are

My 6 absolutes are similarities and dualitys which i have named all 6

Deforres's picture
None of those six are

None of those six are absolutes. For the love of Pete, get your shit strait, tovarich.

Drewcgs11's picture
You have already agreed 4 of

You have already agreed 4 of them are similarities?wtf are you talking about

Deforres's picture
Agreement does not mean

Agreement does not mean absoluteness. You failed the spot check. Again.

Deforres's picture
Absolute as a noun:

Absolute as a noun:

a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

Drewcgs11's picture
None the less we agree on my

None the less we agree on my 3 similarities, 2 dualitys and 2 universal laws! Which in my opinion is facts as of today

Deforres's picture
You and I agreeing is a far

You and I agreeing is a far cry from universal. Convince, say, 75% of the scientific and philosophical community. Then you can say it's universal agreement.

Deforres's picture
Oh, can't or don't want to go

Oh, can't or don't want to go through the effort of doing that? That's why you don't have the authority to decide facts and absolutes, tovarich.

Drewcgs11's picture
Ok i was wrong you was right

Ok i was wrong you was right they are not absolutes but simular facts

Deforres's picture
Similar facts Alon can not

Similar facts Alon can not support the weight of your theory. Don't get me wrong, you've got a very good idea here.

Deforres's picture
I propose a truce on this

I propose a truce on this matter. There is no way to support the full weight of your theory. However, there is not enough to the contrary to dismiss your theory. The best ground for this matter is neutral.

Drewcgs11's picture
Like i said i know that but

Like i said i know that but its so many other factors that point to this theory to being very possible.but i think we have gotten to a point if agreement of the the facts i have stated to being true or possible

Deforres's picture
I feel is best to go with

I feel is best to go with "possible". There is simply not enough conclusive evidence to call it true at this time. Granted, you are close.

Drewcgs11's picture
Well its sure was hard

Well its sure was hard getting that possibility across lol but thats exactly were i keep it at. wouldent it be funny if like scientist come out next year and backs this idea without talking to me but just naturally coming across this theory threw organic studies

Deforres's picture
As I said, I was not

As I said, I was not attacking your theory, but your "absolutes". I'm glad we could finally meet on common ground.

Nyarlathotep's picture
It isn't a theory. It makes

It isn't a theory. It makes no testable predictions.

Deforres's picture
Damn you, you shot all of my

Damn you, you shot all of my skillful placation all to hell.

Drewcgs11's picture
Well then its at least a

Well then its at least a concept

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well a much better concept

Well a much better concept would be something like:

The big bang theory might imply a singularity, and black holes might be singularities. The big bang theory gives us a cosmic horizon, and black holes give us an event horizon. The big bang theory is insensitive to initial conditions, a black hole is insensitive to initial conditions. This kind of speculation is decades old, but at least it isn't self contradictory, unlike yours.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.