Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

No, not really lol. She's pretty conservative generally speaking.

To be fair, in the 'old wild west,' to steal a mans horse was, quite frequently, a de facto sentence to slow death for that man. A man whos horse was stolen all too often faced death from exhaustion and dehydration in the desert, whereas a company who has been looted faces the horror of filing an insurance claim.

My Mom drives a Prius, and she's Republican...

Possibly, but he's going to want a lot more than a book deal out of it, I'm sure.

She certainly does! Her dick is 6'2". I know Bill can't top THAT.

You're right, and I owe you an apology. I didn't even realize at the time that I was being nasty. Sorry for that, I sometimes don't even realize how much my mood is coloring my speech as it's happening.

EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements, requiring even more time to build a singularity. Can't really conclude any less time is needed. But the heavy elements as well most certainly could have existed with no BB.

Oh, you were there? It's theorized that the overwhelming majority of elements were hydrogen and helium, but not the entirety. A black hole/singularity is a concern of overall mass- not the individual mass of each atom and molecule. Whether it's predominately heavy elements, predominately iron, or predominately helium, the condition for a black hole/singularity is simply that the mass is sufficient that gravitational attraction compresses the whole beyond the schwarzchild radius.

Again nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB

The notBB idea completely accounts for the matter in the universe, without some unknown and unexplained super singularity exploding and creating the universe. Soooooo I'm liking the more complete explanation, that doesn't require an unexplained BB. I believe it has long been the case in theoretical physics that most often the most elegant and simple explanation turns out to be the strongest.

I think you're talking out of your ass. You can't even name the idea in question- WHAT idea? The poorly explored one in the article, you mean? No, that doesn't begin to completely account for all the matter in the universe.

Also, let's look at these two quotes of yours:

"nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB"

"EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements:

One of these statements does not belong here.

Heavy Elements (link)

Doesn't really contest anything here- this shows the conclusions some have drawn from available data, but do not speak to heavy elements being ONLY formed in old stars, nor does it actually assert that their presence in the immediate aftermath of the big bang was impossible; even if only .0000001% of the mass contained within the big bang formed heavy elements during the initial expansion, that is still a massive raw quantity of heavy elements.

Black holes have never been seen (link)

Of course they haven't been seen. To see something requires viewing light either emitted or reflected by it, neither of which occurs with these particular phenomena. As I said, they were called black holes initially because they appeared to be actual holes- as in regions where there should be detectable emissions, but none exist. The phenomena were initially detected and their nature inferred due to the fact that light 'falls' into it.

You may be right about the uneven distribution if the BBT is correct

What are you trying to say here, exactly?

There can't be an uneven distribution of matter after a big bang if no big bang occurred; that's non-sensical.

If a big bang occurred, the distribution of matter and energy was almost certainly uneven. Asserting a perfect distribution of all matter and energy in all directions is quite a claim to make.

I don't see how any of this constitutes actually disputing my position either, care to clarify that?

The discrepancies you point out, exist only if you assume that heavy elements could be part of a singularity.

You'll note that I noted the formations could occur during or just after the big bang as well, while all the material is still reasonably close. We also don't know what the initial matter that expanded from the big bang looked like- some of it may well have originated as heavy elements at the moment of the big bang.

Further

Also a cause for uneven distribution is not shown in the BBT.

Do we have any reason to believe that the distribution of mass and energy from the big bang was 100% uniform and perfect? If not, then we're working with an uneven distribution.

We do in fact have a sound theory that says the heavy elements are formed in stars.

I'm not contesting that- I'm contesting the idea that this is the only way that they can possibly form. If it is possible for these to form during the course of the/a big bang, then it's pretty obvious we don't have a way to directly observe that yet.

Further, nothing you've said speaks anything regarding the possibility of an inaccurate timeframe.

Finally black hole theory has one big hole in it. Namely that it does not seem like a hole at all. Matter seems to accumulate, rather than pass through a hole. Black holes are known to increase in size as they draw in matter. All they are sure of is that in BHT a powerful gravity well exists. What's inside it is pure speculation.

This isn't a hole in the theory. Black holes were named long before we had any understanding whatsoever of what they are, because they literally appeared as distant 'holes' in the night sky as observed by a telescope, due to their gravity preventing light from escaping. Nobody who is informed at all seriously believes these are actually holes of some kind.

It's a relic of the individual terminology used, and we continue to use this terminology because we don't yet know enough about the phenomena to give them a 'more accurate' name.

Neither side is really accurate for me. I use it, but probably not as often as I should.

I read, investigate myself, and learn in general constantly, and retain much of it, but next to none of it is done under the context of trying to win a debate down the line. I often find myself entering a debate on a topic I've learned much about, and more often than not work from memory initially. When my claims are questioned, I tend to backtrack to find the sources I originally worked with. Most of the time it's quite accurate, but sometimes it turns out that I misremembered something, or conflated two different issues in my memory, or something to that effect.

If I approached this less casually, I'd probably be a better debater- but debating itself is just one of the things I use in my endless quest for knowledge. Almost every time, even if the other side is completely wrong from a factual perspective, there is something useful or at least interesting to be learned by debating them- and I welcome having my positions questioned and criticized, as regardless of whether it reaffirms that I'm right or causes me to seriously re-examine the issue, I benefit from it in some way- more in the latter than the former, really.

I'll probably continue the same, honestly. I don't feel entirely comfortable regurgitating something I just googled, as I generally prefer to look at an issue from as many sides and varying sources as possible before forming an opinion- not that I can prevent myself from inadvertently forming one before I have much in the way of information, but at the very least I can refrain from asserting something I believe to be true if I haven't satisfied my own burden of proof.