Dont you think there is political/existential dimension to all of this you may be missing? You are spending 2 hours debating with a guy all for him to say the evidence for evolution is probablistic. You cant debate someone who thinks all their wn beliefs come from absolute certainty. There are wider dynamics at play and far greater things motivating him than just simply a debate on evolution.
Perhaps the expanding universe is propelled by a super vacuum state sucking the universe into the expanses of nothingness, much like a vacuum sucks up matter. Maybe blackhole singularities perforate spacetime and start the process in motion, thus giving birth to new epochs.
The diagram is puzzling in that the renewed universe always appears directing in the center of the previous one. What physics would possible cause it to begin in that location every time.
"If I was God, that's what I would do." Really? A smaller universe where there is no danger for humanity? People live forever with no pain or suffering? Would we have to work? So, therefore God must be a myth or fantasy because YOU would have done things differently. Sounds reasonable. But really simplistic and STUPID!
It seems that eons don't have a first one as they depend on a prior earlier one. So they must have been lots of previous ones and therefore lots and lots of gravitational rings and lots and lots of hawking points imprinted, we don't see these, so I don't understand the claimed evidence. Perhaps there is a logic flaw in this argument
My own personal option is that there aren't specific calculations that show what the CMb should look like given CMb, so there are effects that might be present but might not be
Can anything be observed beyond the event horizon? No. So can there be empirical evidence? No. Until then, as smart as you is, whomever and however beloved you are…., until you can observe and verify anything beyond the event horizon, Santa Claus has way more credibility, especially observed practical effects
One has to be glad that Frank Turek isn't eternal, even though he imagines to be so. The preposterous self-assurance with which he presents his ignorance is painfully annoying, to say the least. Empty barrels rattle the most.
Hafnium bombs would be more powerful than H-bombs, and leave no fallout. But more powerful still would be a relativistic bomb, say with the mass of the Space Shuttle, moving at .99999 light speed. Most powerful of all would be an Alcubierre drive vehicle downloading into sidereal space generating an instantaneous gamma ray burster. Such a happy reality we inhabit.
It seems to me that there's enough strange things about this universe (fine tuning, that we are here at all etc.) to entertain the possibility that it _was_ created by some external entity. What seems utterly _implausible_ to me, though, is that _anyone_ could claim to hold personal knowledge of this creator... and to do so seems utterly ridiculous, because, _if_ a creator wanted to be known, then why on Earth would they go about it in such a very, very, elusive and mysterious manner? Surely, if an entity that had created the entire universe wanted to be known to entities _within_ the universe, and they had a message that they deeply wished to communicate to those internal entities, then they could do better than sending Yeshua down - a figure who left no written words, and who's own disciples were so confused about his message that people have been arguing about what he meant for the past two millennia! I mean, this is _the creator of the whole entire universe_ that we're talking about here. Don't you think they could have done a little better?
If you like speculating about high-energy physics weapons, David Kipping had a video about 6 months ago on a hypothetical muon collider that could generate a neutrino beam straight through the planet, destroying a nuclear weapon stockpile on the other side. It would fizzle up to 3 percent of the target's yield, which would still be pretty substantial.
Different than how I envisioned. From critical density to spin and compression. Larger than Tsar bomb. Very short but high output and burn rate as it evaporates almost as fast as it's made. The other way would be from the inside to out and super massive black holes turning into a white hole. Big bang variants. Thank you for sharing.
Why building a "black hole bomb" that can turn 30% of its mass into energy, when you could much easier build an "anti-matter bomb" that can turn 200% of its mass into energy? (200% means all of its own anti-matter mass and the same amount of mass of surrounding matter it makes contact with.) While black holes are just wild theoretical speculation at best, anti-matter exists, and we have already produced anti-protons and positrons in particle accelerators with today's technology.
@@PhilHalper1 I know, but I'm thinking about small-sized multiple experiments. I'm not a physicist. I'm a complete amateur. But if I understand this correctly, you could build small 'boxes' with a single exit covered with a detector and then launch them in a orbit between the Earth and the Moon. Wouldn't that verify vacuum fluctuations? Or if all vacuum is the same, whether in space or created artificially, you could do it on Earth.
For 119 years, by determining the constancy of speed of light, all experiments and Michelson-Morley experiments are indirect and incomplete. If the Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out on a bus or airplane and was used to determine speed. only then will this experience be direct. Therefore, Einstein does not rely on the Michelson-Morley experiment. Question. Do you have an example of such direct experience? New technologies, new research tools Let me suggest for schoolchildren and students on one's own to measure the Universe, dark energy, black holes, etc. To do this, I propose two practical devices. «laser tape measure *+reference distance* 1,000,000 m”» and «Michelson-Morley HYBRID Gyroscope». I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 500000 (In a laser tape measure, the length of the optical fiber is fixed at 1000000 ) meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 94/94/94 cm, and the weight is 94 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta)
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: It seems to me that ANY theory of everything idea should be able to answer the below items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. If that idea does not, then is it truly a theory of everything? a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence. b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality? f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them? Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe? Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above. Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent? h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How? * NOTE: Even General Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics cannot answer these items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. Shouldn't these above items also require accurate answers?
Watch the Sean Carroll/WL Craig debate. Scientist Carroll doesn't let philosopher Craig get away with his usual confident assertions about the physics of fine tuning. 😊
*Note to self* Bill, You watched this in 2023. You enjoyed it but find something else to do for 40 minutes. You've seen this more than once. Check the comments if you doubt this. Youll see you commented last year that you watched this. Yours truly, Bill
Ugh, why is it such a pain to listen to this disingenuous Subboor. His only aim seems to be to obfuscate, confuse and grandstand while people like Phil have to wade through his word bullshit. He's not coming into this with good faith or an open mind.
Does anyone know of a technical paper that presents the refutations in this video? I have searched on the archive and I can't find one. This the only place I've seen this, and I've searched everywhere for a technical discussion.
I think part of the reason for religious rejecting climate change is the fact that for 20 year, Richard Dawkins his friends have insisted on insulting and ridiculing religious people. To paraphrase, the religious are, according to Dawkins, "stupid, ignorant or wicked", and he says people must choose between religion or science. The two statements are easy shown to be false be existence of my prominent scientists who also are religious. However, some religious people do make this choice, some choosing atheism and some choosing religion. And those that choose to reject science will reject climate change. Solving climate change requires all parties to cooperate and this will only happen if modern-atheist stop belittling/bully others to boost their own illusory sense of intellectual superiority.
@@PhilHalper1 I'm not sure there's any concrete data on how many christians have heard of him, but he's very well known. The point is he is an example of how many new atheist love to insult religious people. This is not a way to get different groups to cooperate, which is desperately needed.
@@bobbobbybobson2282 Hes very well known in certain spheres, but Im not ocninvced he's well know to most Christinains, without any data on that its hard to corroborate your conjecture.
So,poor Corrie thought that the horrors that she underwent were a necessary part of god’s plan,justifying the holocaust and rendering void any judgment about it. Ok 👍
The so called "black hole" is contingent upon matter being attracted to huge densities and pressures. Why then does this matter not undergo fission and turn to pure radiating enetgy{photons} long before this so called "singularity" state? It would seem logical that the density and subsequent pressure would cause ALL of the matter it radiate away after a particular extreme density is met.(a,k,a a nuclear explosition}. No explanation has been given as to why this does not happen therefore the idea of a "black hole singularity" is a mathematically consistnt illusion that cannot exist in any place but within a theorum on paper written by a mathematician. Putting it another way "black holes" do exist in the Penrose paper but nowhere else. Roger created an entirely consistent illusion in the same way Esher did with his staircases but these consistencies exist and are true only on paper and not in reality. So he recieved a Nobel Prize for an elaborate dream fantasy that makes sense.
*Biggest FTA problem?* The biggest FTA problem to me is that it implies an infinite regression of ever-greater creators: If our seemingly mildly tuned universe requires a creator, - creator(0) - wouldn’t creator(0) have to be more “finely-tuned” than the universe? And since fine-tuning “requires” a creator, then creator(0) implies creator(-1), etc _ad infinitum_
So i guess now i am the last human to not have got the COVID 19 and i did everything like normal people going to work and normal commute and still til now I've been lucky to not get it
I now see why shut up and calculate is a thing. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 people just don't shut up in general, when it's proclamations or stories from Bologna, which I don't know about since he got cut off by the moderator who couldn't shut up. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Just a joke. Great interview. Loved hearing from both these lovely folks.
