[dleviwing]

Sub;
I have answered these question in other posts that you seem to ignore due to your fixation on your deity status. Talking to a fool is almost as bad as following one.
Have a nice day;

[subversion]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Sub;
I have answered these question in other posts that you seem to ignore due to your fixation on your deity status. Talking to a fool is almost as bad as following one.
Have a nice day;

I never said I was a deity. Please refer me to the posts you are talking about and I will see. Or if you want to, just post it again because it won't take that long. Otherwise it seems like you are just avoiding the issue yet again, and that would be a grave dissappointment.

ps. talking to or following a fool is not near as bad as being so obsessed that you look up stuff about the supposed "fool's" college of enrollment. In other words, I think this fool has a secret admirer.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by michellemfry

Subversion, about where matter might come from. This one is bizarre, I realize, but what about early universe white holes. Black holes can only consume matter, while white holes can only emit matter. I'm proposing that a white hole in the early universe outpaced the black holes and that is why matter took hold in the early universe.

I know I'm a little out there with this thinking, so be gentle.

this is a good answer Michelle, but again, if you cannot determine where the matter from the white hole is coming from, how can you prove that the white hole itself is not creating the matter? Now I'm not saying that matter can be created, I'm just saying that the question may be irrelevant when things like the big bang are considered.

[michellemfry]

Let's just say that white holes are the opposite of black holes and we do not understand all there is to black holes. The balance of matter, antimatter, and space came from within somewhere. Now I'm in an uncomfortable position. I'm wildly speculating, and I don't like that about myself.

[baudrunner]

perhaps you think you are qualified to answer my questions baudrunner

Of course I'm qualified to answer your questions. We all are. But sometimes they're just so mundane I'd much rather mess with your head.

Mike5 made a comment some time ago and I think it applies:

The problem is that at some point our thoughts dissapear up their own passageway.

[michellemfry]

Baudrunner, would you consider changing your mind about recieving private messages. Sometimes someone might want to discuss something serious with you, but away from the public forum. I tried to contact you, but was deinied access.

All communication access desired,

[Guille]

Originally Posted by michellemfry

Baudrunner, would you consider changing your mind about recieving private messages. Sometimes someone might want to discuss something serious with you, but away from the public forum. I tried to contact you, but was deinied access.

All communication access desired,

Yes baud, I went to your member page but there was no link to PM. I really would like to exchange with you pms.

Can't you allow it?

[michellemfry]

Com on' baud, what have you got to lose. A little privacy.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by baudrunner

Of course I'm qualified to answer your questions. We all are. But sometimes they're just so mundane I'd much rather mess with your head.

Mike5 made a comment some time ago and I think it applies:

\

shame on you for messing with my head. Anyway, you shouldn't be skirting the issue or changing the subject because if you really want to discuss what is mundane we can include your posts as well. Moving on, if my questions are truly mundane, they should be easy for you to answer and so you should not provide excuses. Allow me to state the issue I wish to expose.

From what we know in science all matter came into sudden appearance way back in time at a point we call the big bang. This means there are two options to explain this strange occurrence

either A, all matter was created as a result of the big bang.
or B, all matter was brought from somewhere else as a result of the big bang.

now generally the law of thermodynamics would lead us to conclude that option B is the case. But in reality, we have no proof that option B is the case. What this essentially means is that the law of thermodynamics may technically be wrong as far as we know. Now in order to officially decide between option A or option B, we have to develop a valid theory of everything. Thus it is a scientific and physically proven fact that until we arrive at the theory of everything we can not say for certain whether the law of thermodynamics is true or not because the big bang proves that we don't know. Now all of this is very straightforward and plainly evident. Also, this is not mundane at all but rather very compelling in my opinion. Therefore if we can not discuss this on a serious level then I feel that the members of this forum clearly are not serious enough to truely consider the theory of everything. However, if we are serious enough to discuss this most fundamental and basic issue, then perhaps we can begin working together in which case I will begin to tell you everything that I know which hopefully you will find is a good deal.

sincerely, SubVersion

[baudrunner]

Subversion,

I think I explained that I don't believe in the Big Bang, never did. Analysis of data from cosmic microwave background radiation studies support doubt as to the standard model. I believe that there were many bangs, that energy produced from the creation front created space and a jumble of other energies which combined in randomly organized aggegations which eventually banged on their own over many phases eventually producing what we have today, with only the stuff that makes sense in this reality having any persistence. "Out of chaos, order". So stop stuffing Big Bang theory down my throat. Bangs are another phase after next phase after creation begins, in my opinion.

Anyway, that's theory, but that's why I'm here. So I won't comment on your theory of "existence" because it gets too metaphysical, ie. unreal.