Scientists know the elements in the sun through spectroscopy, which analyzes the unique light signatures (or wavelengths) absorbed or emitted by different chemical elements. When sunlight passes through a prism, dark lines appear in the spectrum. Each element blocks specific wavelengths, acting like a chemical fingerprint. Why don't you say what kind of education you have?
FLRW wrote:
Scientists know the elements in the sun through spectroscopy, which analyzes the unique light signatures (or wavelengths) absorbed or emitted by different chemical elements. When sunlight passes through a prism, dark lines appear in the spectrum. Each element blocks specific wavelengths, acting like a chemical fingerprint. Why don't you say what kind of education you have?
Here's an interesting factoid:
Helium is named after the sun God Helios, and the reason Helium is called that is because it was discovered on the sun two decades before it was discovered on Earth.
Cool nerd fact.
Helium was discovered on the sun because of its bright yellow colour which is very unique.
Debby wrote:
Helium was discovered on the sun because of its bright yellow colour which is very unique.
Helium itself is a colorless gas, but its spectral line is bright yellow, and since all the elements have a unique spectral fingerprint, they are all equally unique.
They used the bright yellow to identify it as helium and it stuck.
Debby wrote:
They used the bright yellow to identify it as helium and it stuck.
The color of the spectral line is bright yellow, and the unique signature identified it as a new element, but the color of the spectral line had nothing to do with how it was named, it was named Helium because the element was discovered on the sun (Greek for sun is Helios).
There is no origin to that which eternally exists:
1} eternally existent Spirit-1, meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and perhaps only sometimes, ego,
-- conceptual line of demarcation ---
2} eternally existent, macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the following,
3} eternally existent, Spirit-2, 3 and 4 as our finite, dynamic, occupied space Universe @ :
....Spirit-2 = quantized and quantified { I also label as Observed Time }, Fermionic Matter and Bosonic Forces, ---and yes there is newer 3rd catagory of particle that is hybrid of those two--- and these first two commonly associated with a sine-wave pattern ^v^v^v,
.....Spirit- 3, ultra-micro --ergo non-quantised and non-quantified-- Gravity ( ) being a positive geodesic curvature trajectory spiral on surface of my space and time tori, with the exception as follows,
...Spirit-3, ultra-micro --ergo non-quantised and non-quantified-- Dark Energy )( being negative geodesic curvature trajectory spiral on surface of my space and time tori ....( )( )..... vertical cross section of a torus.
Not explained --and I speculate on Spirit- 3 and 4 surface geodesics etc-- above is that, at the peak of pos. and neg. curvature, they both invaginate in, the back out. This creates the internal sine-wave pattern via two lines or circle plane discs, of the peaks of sine-wave amplitude of phyiscal reality { I also label as Observed Time }. .....(> <)(> <)....
Here is the horizontal bisection of the space and time tori, that show the four circle planes/discs --only partiallyh cause im using text characters to represent a circle-- ...( ( ( ( ) ) ) ).... Take note that the inner Dark Energy in bold dos not infer negative curvature, and that is because were looking from top of a torus with the cross-sectionaing. Think of a doughnut or bagel on counter top, sliced in half and we are above it viewing.
Of course the doughtnut does not have the invaginations that my space and time tori do. The two internal lines { inbetween lines } are the are is where the peaks of the sine wave pattern will exist{ aproximately }. My theories are not developed enough to know all the possible patterns that may go with this basic set of four abstract circles to give us ideas of where events are taking place and and changing direction.
Here is the 2D matrice version of the 3D space and time tori. The semi-linear numbering order was my explorations of finding a prime{p} number patterning, and eventually led to my ideas of specific vetexial{ in 3D } events changing of directions
....1................5p.....7p.............11p......13p...............17p..... outer pos. surface Gravity
-
0.........................6..........................12............................18/0 internal top peak of sine-wave pattern reality
.............3p......................9..............................15................ internal bottom peak of sine-wave pattern reality
-
........2p.......4...............8.....10...................14......16........inner neg. surface Dark Energy
18/0 signifiies that this is the minimal frequency --3 hexagonal frequency-- space and time torus of Universe that is possible. Speculation remmeber. The line 0...18 means that if each line curves back around to meet itself then, the 18 and 0 events will meet before the other numbered events do, ergo, the 18/0 identfication for the minimal space and time torus.
Using a doughnut asan example brings other examples where a doughnut is used.
@Debby wrote in post #137: @Kermos Scientists are still sorting out the inconsistencies in the BigBang theory. Use the Bible to fill in the gaps.
@Debby wrote in post #143: @Kermos It might have more credibility if backed by the Bible and God as creator.
Hello again Debby,
I still understand your sentiment.
Since the Word of God is decisively clear regarding the 6,000 years ago-ish beginning for all creation (see post #20 and post #82 for Word of God quotations), then a 13,800,000,000 years ago-ish Big Bang represents אֲבַדּוֹן (abbadon, destruction) for all who cling to that purportedly super-hot, swelteringly torturous שְׁאוֹל (sheol, hell).
No communion exists between Lord Jesus Christ who is with us Christians and Satan the enemy who is with Big Bang adherents (2 Corinthians 6:14-15). We Christians overcame the evil one, even the many of the Big Bang scheme/model/theory/belief (1 John 2:13), so there is no backfilling gaps between the Word of God and the Big Bang.
You are concerned about credibility and contorting the Word of God to the Big Bang, but I am concerned about people believing in Christ and Him crucified and the Word of God is good unto salvation from the wrath of God (Romans 1:16). The keywords are credibility versus believing.
The Big Bang is not proof of God. God is not proof of the Big Bang.
Please don’t be vague, Debby. State your meaning with detail and citations.
Regards,
Kermos
The Big Bang does not change the Christian view of the universe because both creation and the Big Bang had a beginning, both continued the expanding universe and God created the universe for humans. The scientific theory is important to explain the technical details to advance our knowledge of the universe that god created.
The true Christian perspective would take the Bible at its word: Eternity has meaning as it does in mathematics: no beginning and no end. "Eternity" is taught as having no beginning nor end in Psalms, Habakkuk, Malachi, John, and Revelation. Go find them. How many times have I suggested the Bible deserves to be read cover-to-cover?
There may, indeed, have been a Big Bang, but that does not mean it was the origin of the universe. "Bangs" may be cyclical. Tell me why not?
Science does not define eternity since it has no reference other than in mathematics.
In mathematics, the line has no beginning and no end, as is the symbol ∞. The ray has a starting point and goes to infinity in the opposing direction, but that is not eternity. The segment has a definitive beginning point and end point.
We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.
- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University
The reason the Bible does not use science to describe creation is because human knowledge was at a minimum in the beginning and science and knowledge had to be acquired and developed. Science is someday expected to explain God when it develops further.
For sure Debs, GOD is a concept that predates Christianity...Magic man was an obvious solution...Though we do know that the 6000 year baloney is baloney.
And for sure, the GOD principle is the BIG BANG, is everything we do and do not know...And maybe one day we will know everything...Though it's likely that Another Alternative Intelligence will work it out first.
In the mean time we still need to do a lot of important sorting out...Like, who can have what and whether or not we should fight over it, and transsexualism and nationalism and which fitted kitchen to go for, sleek modern minimalist or quirky retro...And then there's dentistry and the piano keyboard Cheshire cat look that everyone desires.
Yep, all the important stuff...But hey, we are mostly all wired up to the new global-techno-data GOD...Such is real progress I suppose.
That is why Jesus has to return a second time to finish the job. The Jews ended his first mission 3 years after he started his mission by crucifying him.
@FLRW wrote in post #145: @Kermos Your statement that redshift is merely an untested assumption is incorrect;
Your statement is false. Red-shift is untested according to the scientific method, and red-shift is a belief without proof (assumption), and red-shift is merely red-spectral (see post #53 for details).
I remind you of astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, with an international team of astrophysicists and astronomers who produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper which your statement directly contradicts. You have faith that the universe is expanding, yet your faith opposes astrophysicist Burbidge’s faith.
Since you fight against your own, FLRW, then you are in a state of faith for the Big Bang.
@FLRW wrote in post #145: while the interpretation of redshift as evidence for cosmic expansion is a theoretical model,
Red-shift remains untested in your writing, there.
@FLRW wrote in post #145: 1. Observed Phenomenon: Redshift is the measurable increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. It is confirmed by spectroscopy, which matches observed spectral lines to known atomic structures, proving the shift is real and not an artifact of measurement.
Your red-shift spectral lines are merely markers of red-spectral light along the light spectrum. Your astronomer astrologers conjured old ages upon older ages based on light and their magical “interpretation” of differing degrees of red light.
Red-shift remains untested in your item 1 writing, there.
@FLRW wrote in post #145: 2. Testing and Validation: The relationship between redshift and distance (Hubble’s Law) is supported by extensive observational data. While there are ongoing debates about the Hubble tension and potential systematic biases, the redshift data itself has been replicated and verified by thousands of scientists over decades.
Your “observational data” fails to support “redshift and distance (Hubble’s Law)” according to astrophysicist Burbidge, mentioned to you above and in previous posts (which you unscientifically ignore, Mr. Scientist).
Your “replicated” red-shift spectral lines are not “verified” using the scientific method.
Your astronomer astrologers conjured up Hubble’s law, V=H0D, and they give each other hearty approval in like manner to William and Valdemar as exemplified in post #118.
Red-shift remains untested in your item 2 writing, there.
@FLRW wrote in post #145: 3. Interpretation vs. Observation: The primary scientific debate centers on the cause of redshift. The standard cosmological model attributes it to the expansion of space (cosmological redshift), while alternative views suggest it may be caused by light attenuation (tired light) or other mechanisms. However, even critics acknowledge the redshift measurement is accurate, disputing only its implication for universal expansion.
Your “debate” fails to be “scientific” because red-shift never achieved scientific method standards.
Your “expansion of space” belief entirely depends on your red-shift belief, so you ride on compounded beliefs without proofs (assumptions).
Look at your ludicrously inane belief without proof (assumption) of “tired light”. People get tired, but light does not get tired, nor does light grow weary!
You climax your item 3 with this ludicrously inane oxymoron “even critics acknowledge the redshift measurement is accurate”.
Red-shift remains untested in your item 3 writing, there.
@FLRW wrote in post #145: In summary, redshift is a well-established empirical observation, not an untested assumption. The controversy lies in whether it is primarily due to Doppler motion, gravitational effects, or the stretching of spacetime.
In summary, observations of red-spectral light are plainly observations of red-spectral light. Observations of red-spectral light tests not for red-shift.
As shown in post #82, the Doppler effect for light is nonsense nonscience.
Your contrived controversy about light between the nonsense nonscience “Doppler motion”, unproven General Relativity “gravitational effects” (Einstein and derivative errors disected in post #61 and post #87 and post #93), and your stretch of faith “stretching of spacetime” all amount to Big Bang as a leap of faith!
Red-shift is an untested belief without proof (assumption).
That explains why the Bible does not include unverified scientific theories.
@FLRW wrote in post #151: @Kermos Scientists know the elements in the sun through spectroscopy,
Your statement is false. Here is the true statement:
Scientists speculate about the elements comprising the sun’s outer layer (surface) through spectroscopy, but the sun’s core is a mystery to mankind.
@FLRW wrote in post #151: which analyzes the unique light signatures (or wavelengths) absorbed or emitted by different chemical elements. When sunlight passes through a prism, dark lines appear in the spectrum. Each element blocks specific wavelengths, acting like a chemical fingerprint.
Now you convey redshift nullification which is that red-shift spectral lines are merely light wavelengths blocked by elements, not your “tired light” recorded in post #165:.
@FLRW wrote in post #151: Why don’t you say what kind of education you have?
Your MIT trained mind neglected a huge swath of important debate points, so, instead of obsessing over my education, why don’t you dig into a non-AI generated point by point response to this post? Or, is your education insufficient to contend.
@FLRW wrote in post #131: @Kermos From: ht …snip… The Big Bang — a rapid expansion of all the universe’s matter from a single point about 13.8 billion years ago — is predicted
Your post starts with your belief that you have “predicted” a 13,800,000,000 year old past purported event called the Big Bang, but you believe you did the impossible of foretelling that 13,800,000,000 year old past event (see the dictionary definition of predict in post #82). A past prediction is a ludicrously inane oxymoron for your 13,800,000,000 year old purported event.
Your “rapid expansion of all the universe” is your unsubstantiated belief because I presented astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, with an international team who produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper which your statement directly contradicts. You have faith that the universe is expanding, yet your faith opposes astrophysicist Burbidge’s faith.
@FLRW wrote in post #131: by theoretical physics,
Where is your scientific method work, Mr. Scientist? Don’t forget astrophysicist Burbidge with his work in The Astrophysical Journal, issue 1, volume 620 mentioned above! You don’t have scientific fact, but you do have belief per your use of the concept “theoretical” fundamentally indicating faith/belief just as shown in the dictionary definition of the word theory recorded in post #20.
@FLRW wrote in post #131: a field that uses math to create consistent theories that explain the physical world we see around us.
Nobody saw the Big Bang, so your Big Bang Theory is inconsistent with the physical world. I demonstrated the broken rungs of your cosmic distance ladder in post #53, yet you come back with hollow comments unsubstantiated by scientific fact regarding the Big Bang, so you sit there with your faith based prognostications without scientific method facts!
By the way, post #118 demonstrated the scientific method (detailed) versus unscientific confirmation of error (William and Valdemar). You mentioned math, but that math remains unsubstantiated by you!
@FLRW wrote in post #131: The amounts of different elements in the universe matches what’s predicted by the theory.
You don’t know what elements are inside of the Sun, at a mere 8 light minutes from Earth, so you have absolutely no idea of all the elements that could be in the Magellanic Clouds.
I remind you of your astrophysicist Stephen Hawking’s “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.
@FLRW wrote in post #131: Because the theory specifies what sorts of elements were created — and in what proportions — moments after the Big Bang, it makes predictions about what elements we’ll see in the universe around us. When we’ve measured the amount of these elements (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), they match the predictions nicely.
Your calculations are designed with the end result in mind. Again, see the William and Valdemar example in post #118. Again, your calculations are similar to the scenario encapsulated in your high priest Hawking’s proverb.
@FLRW wrote in post #131: There are two equations which describe the evolution of the Universe as a whole, and they are called the Friedmann equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations Solving the equations gives the size of the Universe as a function of time. At time=0 the Universe was at zero size! …snip
Again, Friedmann sets up 2 equations that maps to his belief system. Again, see your high priest Hawking’s star bible contribution, above.
Mr. Scientist, FLRW, I would like to introduce you to your own intellect of “At time=0 the Universe was at zero size” which means that you believe NOTHING became EVERYTHING.
Don’t bother to theorize what I mean because I’m spelling it out for you. You admitted the universe wasn’t even a small, hot dot in the beginning. You admitted the universe exploded without any detonation accelerants, no TNT, no fission, no fusion.
You have a mystical, magical beginning of all things called the Big Bang. You have entered the faith zone.
I believe YHWH God created everything from nothing about six thousand years ago.
You believe your Big Bang god created everything from nothing about thirteen billion, eight hundred million years ago.
This is why he could never get into MIT.
I believe YHWH God created everything from nothing about six thousand years ago.
The Sun has been shining for 4.6 billion years. Considerable hydrogen has been converted to helium in the core, where the burning is most rapid. The helium remains there, where it absorbs radiation more readily than hydrogen. This raises the central temperature and increases the brightness. Model calculations conclude that the Sun becomes 10 percent brighter every billion years; hence it must now be at least 40 percent brighter than at the time of planet formation. This would produce an increase in Earth’s temperature, but no such effect appears in the fossil record. There were probably compensating thermostatic effects in the atmosphere of Earth, such as the greenhouse effect and cloudiness. The young Sun may also have been more massive, and thus more luminous, and would have lost its early mass through the solar wind. The increase in solar brightness can be expected to continue as the hydrogen in the core is depleted and the region of nuclear burning moves outward. At least as important for the future of Earth is the fact that tidal friction will slow down Earth’s rotation until, in four billion years, its rotation will match that of the Moon, turning once in 30 of our present days.
Nice data FLRW.
And we as upcycled matter can add our 0 - 100 years of value to the Sun and Earth event.
Though I'm guessing that an estimate of 6000 years is a tad underestimated.
And also explains why the Bible does include one big unverifiable hypothesis.
The Bible is the history of the Jewish people and the struggles with their God. It included the rest of the world after Jesus was crucified.
Matthew 28:18. All authority has been given to me. Go and preach the Gospel to the world.
Kermos wrote:
@FLRW wrote in post #151: @Kermos Scientists know the elements in the sun through spectroscopy,
Your statement is false. Here is the true statement:
Scientists speculate about the elements comprising the sun’s outer layer (surface) through spectroscopy, but the sun’s core is a mystery to mankind.
@FLRW wrote in post #151: which analyzes the unique light signatures (or wavelengths) absorbed or emitted by different chemical elements. When sunlight passes through a prism, dark lines appear in the spectrum. Each element blocks specific wavelengths, acting like a chemical fingerprint.
Now you convey redshift nullification which is that red-shift spectral lines are merely light wavelengths blocked by elements, not your “tired light” recorded in post #165:.
@FLRW wrote in post #151: Why don’t you say what kind of education you have?
Your MIT trained mind neglected a huge swath of important debate points, so, instead of obsessing over my education, why don’t you dig into a non-AI generated point by point response to this post? Or, is your education insufficient to contend.
@FLRW wrote in post #131: @Kermos From: ht …snip… The Big Bang — a rapid expansion of all the universe’s matter from a single point about 13.8 billion years ago — is predicted
Your post starts with your belief that you have “predicted” a 13,800,000,000 year old past purported event called the Big Bang, but you believe you did the impossible of foretelling that 13,800,000,000 year old past event (see the dictionary definition of predict in post #82). A past prediction is a ludicrously inane oxymoron for your 13,800,000,000 year old purported event.
Your “rapid expansion of all the universe” is your unsubstantiated belief because I presented astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, with an international team who produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper which your statement directly contradicts. You have faith that the universe is expanding, yet your faith opposes astrophysicist Burbidge’s faith.
@FLRW wrote in post #131: by theoretical physics,
Where is your scientific method work, Mr. Scientist? Don’t forget astrophysicist Burbidge with his work in The Astrophysical Journal, issue 1, volume 620 mentioned above! You don’t have scientific fact, but you do have belief per your use of the concept “theoretical” fundamentally indicating faith/belief just as shown in the dictionary definition of the word theory recorded in post #20.
@FLRW wrote in post #131: a field that uses math to create consistent theories that explain the physical world we see around us.
Nobody saw the Big Bang, so your Big Bang Theory is inconsistent with the physical world. I demonstrated the broken rungs of your cosmic distance ladder in post #53, yet you come back with hollow comments unsubstantiated by scientific fact regarding the Big Bang, so you sit there with your faith based prognostications without scientific method facts!
By the way, post #118 demonstrated the scientific method (detailed) versus unscientific confirmation of error (William and Valdemar). You mentioned math, but that math remains unsubstantiated by you!
@FLRW wrote in post #131: The amounts of different elements in the universe matches what’s predicted by the theory.
You don’t know what elements are inside of the Sun, at a mere 8 light minutes from Earth, so you have absolutely no idea of all the elements that could be in the Magellanic Clouds.
I remind you of your astrophysicist Stephen Hawking’s “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.
@FLRW wrote in post #131: Because the theory specifies what sorts of elements were created — and in what proportions — moments after the Big Bang, it makes predictions about what elements we’ll see in the universe around us. When we’ve measured the amount of these elements (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), they match the predictions nicely.
Your calculations are designed with the end result in mind. Again, see the William and Valdemar example in post #118. Again, your calculations are similar to the scenario encapsulated in your high priest Hawking’s proverb.
@FLRW wrote in post #131: There are two equations which describe the evolution of the Universe as a whole, and they are called the Friedmann equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations Solving the equations gives the size of the Universe as a function of time. At time=0 the Universe was at zero size! …snip
Again, Friedmann sets up 2 equations that maps to his belief system. Again, see your high priest Hawking’s star bible contribution, above.
Mr. Scientist, FLRW, I would like to introduce you to your own intellect of “At time=0 the Universe was at zero size” which means that you believe NOTHING became EVERYTHING.
Don’t bother to theorize what I mean because I’m spelling it out for you. You admitted the universe wasn’t even a small, hot dot in the beginning. You admitted the universe exploded without any detonation accelerants, no TNT, no fission, no fusion.
You have a mystical, magical beginning of all things called the Big Bang. You have entered the faith zone.
I believe YHWH God created everything from nothing about six thousand years ago.
You believe your Big Bang god created everything from nothing about thirteen billion, eight hundred million years ago
I don’t see what either of these points mean, you could just both be wrong lmao
I mean the Big Bang theory is just that, a theory. I don’t see why to give it much more credence than that. We can barely do anything on this planet, so I’ll take any claim that we discovered how the UNIVERSE came to be with a grain of salt. Could be right, could easily be wrong and it probably is.
6,000 year old theory is just bigotry, apparently people can’t be religious nowadays without jumping into the most extreme beliefs. On par with believing NASA faked the Moon landing or worse
As an aside, even if belief in the Big Bang requires faith, it could still be correct and you would be wrong, faith notwothstanding.
Like much of what you said regarding evidence for the Big Bang is probably true, it doesn’t prove you right. Before we had the Big Bang theory atheists had their own ideas of how the Universe came to be, so I don’t think they would be too bothered by the Big Bang being disproven.
@Debby wrote in post #148: @Kermos The Big Bang was an attempt to end the discussion on creation. But obviously it failed.
@Debby wrote in post #150: @Kermos Besides no one heard the sound of the Big Bang. The most obvious case against it.
@Debby wrote in post #160: @Kermos The Big Bang does not change the Christian view of the universe because both creation and the Big Bang had a beginning, both continued the expanding universe and God created the universe for humans. The scientific theory is important to explain the technical details to advance our knowledge of the universe that god created.
@Debby wrote in post #166: That explains why the Bible does not include unverified scientific theories.
Hello this third time Debby,
Every Big Bang believer is against Christ.
I remind you of your writing “Scientists are still sorting out the inconsistencies in the BigBang theory. Use the Bible to fill in the gaps.” recorded in post #159, so you represented yourself as a Big Bang believer.
You failed to “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
Regards,
Kermos
Belief in the creation of the world billions or thousands of years ago by God or the Big Bang is both an act of faith because no one actually witnessed it.
@ebuc wrote in post #157: @Kermos There is no origin to that which eternally exists: …snip
Where in your post is you doing the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”?
@FLRW wrote in post #168: This is why he could never get into MIT.
THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT
So, you convey to me that your perspective of the Massachusetts Indoctrination Temple (MIT) entrance requires the disciple embrace the Big Bang god of MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Or, maybe, you publicly promote MIT has no room for beliefs that oppose MIT preachers’ beliefs; in other words, MIT forbids free dialog and open debate, so MIT dogmatically preaches the Big Bang.
That which you, the disciple of MIT preachers, fail to logically argue, you turn to attack your debate opponent on a personal level (see the Pharmakeia Principle explained in post #71).
Now, back to the section of post #149 that got you to your insult. You failed in your post to touch my analysis of Friedmann equation in relation to your Big Bang belief.
@FLRW wrote in post #131: There are two equations which describe the evolution of the Universe as a whole, and they are called the Friedmann equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations Solving the equations gives the size of the Universe as a function of time. At time=0 the Universe was at zero size! …snip
Again, Friedmann sets up 2 equations that maps to his belief system. Again, see your high priest Hawking’s star bible contribution of “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.
MITman, FLRW, I would like to introduce you to your own intellect of “At time=0 the Universe was at zero size” which means that you believe NOTHING became EVERYTHING.
Don’t bother to theorize what I mean because I’m spelling it out for you. You admitted the universe wasn’t even a small, hot dot in the beginning. You admitted the universe exploded without any detonation accelerants, no TNT, no fission, no fusion.
You have a mystical, magical beginning of all things called the Big Bang. You have entered the faith zone.
I believe YHWH God created everything from nothing about six thousand years ago.
You believe your Big Bang god created everything from nothing about thirteen billion, eight hundred million years ago.
