Closing in on the "God particle"

[BT]

yeah

that's why BSB told you to relax.

[sirs]

Been relaxed since the get go.  It would seem those who have a beef in trying to make something out of nothing are the ones with the issue requiring relaxation intervention.  One can only wonder why

[BT]

What is your best guess as to why?

[sirs]

Good question.  I suggest trying to relax.  You've been all over this tangential molehill, that needed nothing more than response #3.  Try focusing on something a tad more substantive, noteworthy.  Xo's idea that tax dollars are a good thing for .....apparently anything and everything that fits the left's big government philosophy would be a good place to start.  Just another suggestion

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, first you totally distort anything I have said, then you attack the distortion. That should calm you down from the stress of pondering theoretical physics.

[sirs]

Ahhh, the trifecta of attempted mountain out of molehill sirs bashing is complete.  Sorry, but an actual example is required.  Your all too frequently wrong say so, simply isn't going to cut it

[BT]

Good question.  I suggest trying to relax.  You've been all over this tangential molehill, that needed nothing more than response #3.  Try focusing on something a tad more substantive, noteworthy.  Xo's idea that tax dollars are a good thing for .....apparently anything and everything that fits the left's big government philosophy would be a good place to start.  Just another suggestion

So you think discussing that in a thread about the god particle would be the place to do it?

[sirs]

Not at all, though tangents are always amusing.  I'd assume it would be an appropriate reply in the "pet peeve" thread, since that's where the apparent inference originated from

[BT]

OK just curious why you would say topics like tax and spend are more acceptable than asking for clarification as to why the homosexual gene was introduced into a thread about the god particle only to find out that requesting clarification is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Who Knew!

[sirs]

Asked and answered by reply #3, then reinforced in subsequent requests for "clarification".  Start a new thread if it's THAT imperative to keep digging, Bt.  I'm not going to be your shovel

[BSB]

"The Big Bang theory does preclude a "past" prior to the Big Bang."

No it doesn't. And you went right ahead and showed how there could have been. "There may be something *outside* of our universe." I didn't specify inside or outside of this universe. I just said a "past" prior to the Big Bang. 

T-1 ( time minus one ) refers to a "time" prior to the big bang, and what was, may have been, coud have been, there, prior to the Big Bang. I doubt anyone thinks of it as being within this universe, obviously, when discussing the Big Bang theory.

BSB

[Amianthus]

Time was created at the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang, time did not exist, so there is not a "T-1".

[Amianthus]

No Evidence of Time before Big Bang

Latest research deflates the idea that the Universe cycles for eternity.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-evidence-of-time-before-big

[BSB]

T-1 is time minus one. It is before time. When I referred to time before the big bang I put time in "" quotes, "time".

But lets take the article you posted. That proves one thing, they don't know. They are still debating it. One group says A, another says B. I highly doubt they'll know before I take that long uninterrupted nap known as death. However, I come down on the side that this universe came from something. We, this universe, aren't/isn't the begining. I suspect there is no begining, or end. That's a human concept that I believe won't hold water.


BSB 


BSB 

 

[BT]

Asked and answered by reply #3, then reinforced in subsequent requests for "clarification".  Start a new thread if it's THAT imperative to keep digging, Bt.  I'm not going to be your shovel

So true. Most shovels have points.