It appears that the two "proofs" of Big Bang are the background radiation and redshift. But what if there is an alternative explanation to them?

Background Radiation
How does that prove the Big Bang? Why wouldn't it also prove Brane Theory, for instance? The branes colide, there's a huge amount of heat that forms the universe and then it cools down as time goes by. Why not?

Also, why there is a concentration in the "equator" of the universe?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cc/WMAP_2003.png/800px-WMAP_2003.png

Also, keep in mind that expansion requires that mysterious "dark energy" that we, conveniently, cannot find. :rolleyes:

Redshift
All that redshift proves is that the distance between us and most stars is greater then expected. That's all that it proves. The expansion is only inducted from that.

What about the blueshift we observe around us? The local group is blueshifted. Why? There's also a big cluster that is blueshifted (the Virgo one, I think). Why? What if we could look at a distance galaxy. Would the galaxies around it all be blueshifted in relation to that galaxy? So we have a blueshift closer to points all over the universe and a redshift around the universe when points are far apart. What does that mean? How about a rotating universe?

Also, why there is a concentration in the "equator" of the universe?
This is just the milky way.
All that redshift proves is that the distance between us and most stars is greater then expected. That's all that it proves. The expansion is only inducted from that. Wrong! Redshift means galaxies are moving away from us and further galaxies are moving faster.

This is just the milky way.
Oh! So the milky way is in the centre of the universe......

Wrong! Redshift means galaxies are moving away from us and further galaxies are moving faster.
Says who?

Consider this, if the universe is expanding, we need to invent dark energy to account for such expansion. And that makes up over 50% of the entire universe. Now explain to me how you can account for this mysterious invisible energy... :rolleyes:

Oh! So the milky way is in the centre of the universe......

No but you can't take a picture of the entire sky without the milky way being smack in the middle of your way. That image is an uncorrected image of the CMBR.

Wrong! Redshift means galaxies are moving away from us and further galaxies are moving faster.

Says who?

Says science. Although it would be more proper to say that redshift is the shifting of light toward the red end of the spectrum. The redshift that we observe in the universe is caused by objects moving away from us. The farther away the object is the more it seems to be red-shifted, therefore, the faster it is moving away.
On a side note, redshift can also be caused by gravity.

Consider this, if the universe is expanding, we need to invent dark energy to account for such expansion. And that makes up over 50% of the entire universe. Now explain to me how you can account for this mysterious invisible energy... :rolleyes:

Actually, we do not need dark energy to explain expansion. Dark energy is something that would go far in explaining the apparent acceleration of the expansion.

Says science. Although it would be more proper to say that redshift is the shifting of light toward the red end of the spectrum. The redshift that we observe in the universe is caused by objects moving away from us. The farther away the object is the more it seems to be red-shifted, therefore, the faster it is moving away.
On a side note, redshift can also be caused by gravity.
That's a hypothesis. You don't really know. That's why you say "oh it can also be caused by gravity". You don't really know the answer.

Actually, we do not need dark energy to explain expansion. Dark energy is something that would go far in explaining the apparent acceleration of the expansion.
And that's what the big bang hypothesis suggest. That's my point.

That's a hypothesis. You don't really know. That's why you say "oh it can also be caused by gravity". You don't really know the answer.

How old are you?

We know that red-shifting is caused by objects moving away. Therefore, we assume that that is what is causing the red-shift that we see in distant objects. We don't know for sure, but damn the evidence sure points in that direction, so that's what we are going with right now.
Do you have a better theory of what is causing the redshift?

And that's what the big bang hypothesis suggest. That's my point.

What's your point? That the BB theory is just a theory? Are you trying to convince me that it is possible that the BB theory is wrong? Of course it's possible. If a theory comes along that better fits the data, then that will be the accepted theory, but until then it sure looks like a BB happened.

How old are you?
What's the point of that question? How old are you?

We know that red-shifting is caused by objects moving away.
Oh please! You know that as much as people knew the earth was the centre of the universe... :rolleyes:

Therefore, we assume that that is what is causing the red-shift that we see in distant objects.
No. Your assumption is redshift=expansion.

We don't know for sure, but damn the evidence sure points in that direction, so that's what we are going with right now.
It's called a "hypothesis". Don't confuse that with "theory".

Do you have a better theory of what is causing the redshift?
There's no better hypothesis- there are only different ones. Mine is that the universe is rotating.

What's your point? That the BB theory is just a theory? Are you trying to convince me that it is possible that the BB theory is wrong? Of course it's possible. If a theory comes along that better fits the data, then that will be the accepted theory, but until then it sure looks like a BB happened.
Replace "theory" by "hypothesis" and I will agree with you. ;)

There's no better hypothesis- there are only different ones. Mine is that the universe is rotating.

It is possible if and only if the universe is finite. Don't you think?

I do have an other hypothesis, instead. (Maybe a little bit better, i.e. not so difficult.)

That's a hypothesis. You don't really know. That's why you say "oh it can also be caused by gravity". You don't really know the answer.

How old are you?

What's the point of that question? How old are you?

Sorry, I just picture a little kid jumping around all excited, pointing his finger and yelling, "See!, You don't really know! You don't really know the answer!"

We know that red-shifting is caused by objects moving away.

Oh please! You know that as much as people knew the earth was the centre of the universe... :rolleyes:

Actually this is a fact. The faster an object moves away from you, the more it's light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum.

There's no better hypothesis- there are only different ones. Mine is that the universe is rotating.

Alright, so how does your 'hypothesis' fit the data? What evidence did you come across that made you decide the universe is rotating? What is outside your rotating universe? Obviously you're throwing redshift = expansion out the window. What is causing the redshift? And where does the CMBR fit into your rotating universe?

Sorry, I just picture a little kid jumping around all excited, pointing his finger and yelling, "See!, You don't really know! You don't really know the answer!"


You should check out physorg.com's forums some time. I can't think of a better example of child care gone awry.

It is possible if and only if the universe is finite. Don't you think?
Huuum.... I'm not sure. Maybe it doesn't really matter. Altough how could the universe be infinite anyways?

I do have an other hypothesis, instead. (Maybe a little bit better, i.e. not so difficult.)
Let's hear it! :)

Sorry, I just picture a little kid jumping around all excited, pointing his finger and yelling, "See!, You don't really know! You don't really know the answer!"
Conversely, I can picture you pouting and saying "it is true because the big people on white coats said so!"... :rolleyes:

Actually this is a fact. The faster an object moves away from you, the more it's light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum.
It's a hypothesis, not a fact. We don't really know why it shifts to the red. We only inducted that by comparing stars with the doppler effect. The big fallacy here is that the analogy is not good enough. The doppler effect happens on earth, where there is air, and it happens with sound. We are comparing that with the light from the stars in a vacuum. You don't see the danger of such analogy, do you?

Alright, so how does your 'hypothesis' fit the data?
It does!?!? :)

:D

What evidence did you come across that made you decide the universe is rotating?
It's a hypothesis, not a theory. I don't have evidence yet. Altough the data does support this hypothesis just as much.

What is outside your rotating universe?
Another universe. With greater apparent size.

Obviously you're throwing redshift = expansion out the window. What is causing the redshift?
The rotation.

And where does the CMBR fit into your rotating universe?
Such an universe would be just as uniform as the CMBR suggests.



But it's all hypothesis, of course. It will be hard to prove any of the hypothesis we are talking about in this thread.....

The doppler effect happens on earth, where there is air, and it happens with sound. We are comparing that with the light from the stars in a vacuum. You don't see the danger of such analogy, do you?


The danger here is assuming that wave behaviour is limited to matter and sound waves. Energy within an electromagnetic field is also wavelike, and depending on the relative motion of the emitter and observer, the wavelength will appear to shift.

This generalization of the Doppler effect was presented in Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', his first of many papers regarding relativity.

Of course, whether or not this is the reason why universal redshift occurs is another story. I must agree that it's a pretty good idea though.

Alright, so how does your 'hypothesis' fit the data?

It does!?!? :)

Do we have a language barrier? I asked how your hypothesis fits the data, I didn't say that it did.

Such an universe would be just as uniform as the CMBR suggests.

No, it wouldn't. And the uniformity of the CMBR is just one detail. The fact that there even is a CMBR doesn't fit in your universe.

A universe that rotates will tend to flatten out, it would have a center around which it rotates, and objects nearer the center would tend to rotate faster... all of this making the universe quite non-uniform. This is not what we see. The model does not fit the data.

First of all Truth Seeker, stop saying "inducted"! Induction is totally different frome the word deduce, which I think better suits the sentences in which you use it. Second of all, from what I've read of "big brane theory", the only reason they came up with it was to explain WHY the BIG BANG actually started in the first place! I could be wrong, but that's just the impression that I got.

And don't trifle with the words hypothesis and theory... You got it all mixed up... Your "hypothesis": the universe is spinning fits the definition of hypothesis from dictionary.com: "A mere guess." On the other hand the Big Bang theory fits within the definition of the word theory: "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena".

And red-shift, as part of the doppler effect, has been proven over and over again, so I don't know why you even bother questioning it.

You should check out physorg.com's forums some time. I can't think of a better example of child care gone awry.

That's because decent moderators like ap-bot and neutron have left the place and we have crap moderators like NOM and AlphaNumeric who have let the place go to pot, while they strut about and use their position to act out their spite. :shrug:

The feedback system there has become a tool of bullies, like NOM (as NOM and as other identities), who use it to try and intimidate others. If that does not work, he kicks them off the forum.

Truthseeker. It sounds like a 1950's SF film:

The Branes from Dimension Z that created the Universe.

And no-brainers who believe in branes have the cheek to criticise creationists for talking nonsense. Evidence for branes is the same as evidence for god.

Dark energy is nonsense. IF the Universe is expanding, then gravity which is limited to light speed reaches ever less of the Universe so naturally expansion would speed up.

The CMB could just be heat and light from trillions of stars over billions of years which has changed from infra-red to microwaves as their spectra overlap :

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s217/neufen/EMRspectrum.jpg


There are a number of problems with redshifts. This site shows some :


http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html


I think redshifting may be caused by interactions over cosmic time, but the same people who believe that photons can be stretched by a force of 1 part in 427,636,363,636,363,636 (expansion) do not believe that maybe 1,000,000,000,000 interactions/collisions over a billion lightyears can affect them. Have you ever heard such a blinkered bias?

The standard candle (Type 1A Supernovae) has been shown to have major faults (they can be upto twice as massive when they explode so give a totally wrong reading).

Since all very large things rotate, probably the universe does too.

First of all Truth Seeker, stop saying "inducted"! Induction is totally different frome the word deduce, which I think better suits the sentences in which you use it. Second of all, from what I've read of "big brane theory", the only reason they came up with it was to explain WHY the BIG BANG actually started in the first place! I could be wrong, but that's just the impression that I got.

And don't trifle with the words hypothesis and theory... You got it all mixed up... Your "hypothesis": the universe is spinning fits the definition of hypothesis from dictionary.com: "A mere guess." On the other hand the Big Bang theory fits within the definition of the word theory: "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena".

And red-shift, as part of the doppler effect, has been proven over and over again, so I don't know why you even bother questioning it.

The BB is just an idea which needs ever more unlikely nonsense to keep it afloat. Many scientists do not believe in it. Some years back, some dozens of the top people in the field appeared in an article in New Scientist explaining why they thought it was wrong and why other theories should be considered.

The method of showing evolution was accepted unquestioningly a century ago which is how the Piltdown Man (a fraud perpetrated by a vicar) came to be accepted by almost all the scientific community without question. With ever new knowledge, all past knowledge should continue to be questioned in the light of new discoveries.

It appears that the two "proofs" of Big Bang are the background radiation and redshift. But what if there is an alternative explanation to them?

Background Radiation
How does that prove the Big Bang? Why wouldn't it also prove Brane Theory, for instance? The branes colide, there's a huge amount of heat that forms the universe and then it cools down as time goes by. Why not?

Also, why there is a concentration in the "equator" of the universe?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cc/WMAP_2003.png/800px-WMAP_2003.png

Also, keep in mind that expansion requires that mysterious "dark energy" that we, conveniently, cannot find. :rolleyes:


Redshift
All that redshift proves is that the distance between us and most stars is greater then expected. That's all that it proves. The expansion is only inducted from that.

What about the blueshift we observe around us? The local group is blueshifted. Why? There's also a big cluster that is blueshifted (the Virgo one, I think). Why? What if we could look at a distance galaxy. Would the galaxies around it all be blueshifted in relation to that galaxy? So we have a blueshift closer to points all over the universe and a redshift around the universe when points are far apart. What does that mean? How about a rotating universe?

Yes... I wonder why we can't find this dark matter, yet over 100 experiments have been extrapolated to find them... Dark matter is a mathematical and yet, human mistake.

I have to totally agree with the rest of your post. It is clear you have put much though into this!!! The Brane Collision will provide evidence, but we need to make sure we are indeed on the right path...

Why knows but God?

Wrong! Redshift means galaxies are moving away from us and further galaxies are moving faster.

But they aren't moving. There is ever more space between us and them as the universe expands. It is more space since I don't believe space can expand, and space like everything in it is limited to light speed.

K

Quite right... one must assume that the large whole found in the Galaxy is indeed proof itself that big bang MIGHT NOT BE correct, but perhaps a cascafe of new idea's... such as:

1. An early antimatter-matter collision


2. Gravitational decoherence... or even simply


3. That aliens have discovered the particle that clokes spacetime itself... the axion... ????

But they aren't moving. There is ever more space between us and them as the universe expands. It is more space since I don't believe space can expand, and space like everything in it is limited to light speed.

K is right you know... ? Imagine a cake ina an oven with raisins, as the old the ol theory goes.

There have been many models for dark matter and it's like a prostitute. It's whatever you want it to be, whether 50 times heavier than a proton or as light as a neutrino. 9000.C but unable to be detected by infra-red because it doesn't lose heat. Cannot be captured but can form large structures. It sounds like an idiot's wish list. The only thing all agree is it can act gravitationally, which is a must.

Which means any planet or moon can suck it up as they sweep through space, but more importantly, so can black holes and super-massive black holes. If DM forms large structures which are located throughout a galaxy, then every black hole is going to start swallowing them, and as the DM structures move inwards to compensate, these in turn would be swallowed till eventually there was none left, other than in the imagination of fools.

But raisin cakes have centres and the BB apparently doesn't.

Just a curiosity in passing. I was in Chinatown this morning in Bangkok and you know how the Chinese pronounce their "R" as "L". I popped into Tesco Lotus to get a bite to eat and a drink, and saw a "Laisin Cake".

Lol...

No, it wouldn't. And the uniformity of the CMBR is just one detail. The fact that there even is a CMBR doesn't fit in your universe.
How so?

A universe that rotates will tend to flatten out, it would have a center around which it rotates, and objects nearer the center would tend to rotate faster... all of this making the universe quite non-uniform. This is not what we see. The model does not fit the data.
That's stupid. It's like saying that the earth is flat because it rotates.

The danger here is assuming that wave behaviour is limited to matter and sound waves.
No. The danger is to generalize it.

First of all Truth Seeker, stop saying "inducted"! Induction is totally different frome the word deduce, which I think better suits the sentences in which you use it.
You are right, I mean "inducted". I checked the wrong dictionary.

Second of all, from what I've read of "big brane theory", the only reason they came up with it was to explain WHY the BIG BANG actually started in the first place! I could be wrong, but that's just the impression that I got.
You're wrong.

And don't trifle with the words hypothesis and theory... You got it all mixed up... Your "hypothesis": the universe is spinning fits the definition of hypothesis from dictionary.com: "A mere guess." On the other hand the Big Bang theory fits within the definition of the word theory: "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena".
No. Hypothesis is a possible explanation that can be proved or disproved through the scientific process. Theory is a tested hypothesis that passed through the scientific process and was found to be most likely true.

And red-shift, as part of the doppler effect, has been proven over and over again, so I don't know why you even bother questioning it.
"Proven"? You call pure guessing "proving".

Truthseeker. It sounds like a 1950's SF film:

The Branes from Dimension Z that created the Universe.

And no-brainers who believe in branes have the cheek to criticise creationists for talking nonsense. Evidence for branes is the same as evidence for god.
So is big bang, strings and a multitude of other modern "scientific" "knowledge".

Since all very large things rotate, probably the universe does too.
I do believe the universe might rotate. However, to assume that just because large things rotate the universe also does is just as dangerous as assuming that just because the doppler effect work here on earth with sound that it will also work in the universe with light.

How so?


That's stupid. It's like saying that the earth is flat because it rotates.

The Earth is an oblate spheroid, not a sphere.

This is due to the fact that the Earth rotates.

No. The danger is to generalize it.

The relativistic transverse Doppler effect has been confirmed by experiment. It's not dangerous, it's realistic.

From http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/doppler.htm:
"The transverse Doppler shift was first seen spectroscopically in the Ives-Stilwell experiment (1938)."

Just to clarify, spectroscopy in this case was dealing with radiated light.

Dark energy is nonsense. IF the Universe is expanding, then gravity which is limited to light speed reaches ever less of the Universe so naturally expansion would speed up.

How does that compute? Gravity, as we know it, tends to bring mass together... so gravity would work against expansion, in other words, gravity should slow the expansion of the universe. 'IF the universe is expanding, then gravity which is limited to light speed reaches ever less of the Universe so naturally expansion' would slow down less not 'speed up'. Gravity being spread out more would in no way speed the expansion up, just slow it down less.

The Earth is an oblate spheroid, not a sphere.

This is due to the fact that the Earth rotates.
Are you saying the earth would be flat if it was bigger? Well, then how about stars? Why aren't they flatter?

How does that compute? Gravity, as we know it, tends to bring mass together... so gravity would work against expansion, in other words, gravity should slow the expansion of the universe. 'IF the universe is expanding, then gravity which is limited to light speed reaches ever less of the Universe so naturally expansion' would slow down less not 'speed up'. Gravity being spread out more would in no way speed the expansion up, just slow it down less.
I think that's what he meant.....

The relativistic transverse Doppler effect has been confirmed by experiment. It's not dangerous, it's realistic.

From http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/doppler.htm:
"The transverse Doppler shift was first seen spectroscopically in the Ives-Stilwell experiment (1938)."

Just to clarify, spectroscopy in this case was dealing with radiated light.
We can see the redshift in the spectra of the stars. However, that is not a clear indication of acceleration or expansion. We are just deducting that the same doppler effect principle that applies on earth also applies in this situation. How can you truly verify this?

Are you saying the earth would be flat if it was bigger? Well, then how about stars? Why aren't they flatter?

Size has nothing to do with it. The Earth (and stars) isn't (aren't) flatter because its a solid object and gravity is the stronger force. Gravity is trying to hold the Earth together as a sphere, and the rotation is trying to pull it apart. Because the rate of rotation is not that high, gravity is winning by a long shot... but the effects of rotation are still there.

For less solid objects: things like our solar system, the galaxies, the rings of saturn, a piece of dough when you twirl it in the air, etc, etc, the flattening effect becomes much more obvious.

We can see the redshift in the spectra of the stars. However, that is not a clear indication of acceleration or expansion. We are just deducting that the same doppler effect principle that applies on earth also applies in this situation. How can you truly verify this?

We can all see that the apple is red, but how do we know for sure?

Obviously it's not as clean cut as that.

"How can we truly verify this?" We can't. Ever. Even if we managed to measure the speed and distance of a distant galaxy by parallax and it comes to almost exactly what we've estimated from it's redshift, that would only be additional evidence, not proof. There would still be people asking, "yeah, but how do we know for sure?"

And that applies to anything... BB theory, relativity, etc. You can't prove anything, you can only show evidence in favor of something. You seem to think that scientists are saying "This is the way it is. Period." But they're not saying that at all. They are saying "This is what it looks like is happening" or "This is the currently accepted theory"

It looks like there was a BB.

Size has everything to do with it.... go and learn the Planck Length and Planck Time... PLEASE!!!!

Are you saying the earth would be flat if it was bigger? Well, then how about stars? Why aren't they flatter?

No, what I was saying is that the Earth is an oblate spheroid because it rotates.

If you're looking to put words in someone's mouth, make sure those words at least make sense. Can you please explain what you were trying to imply that I was implying? Or maybe I should just run circles around myself to show you how it's really done?

We can see the redshift in the spectra of the stars. However, that is not a clear indication of acceleration or expansion. We are just deducting that the same doppler effect principle that applies on earth also applies in this situation. How can you truly verify this?

If you actually read my posts, you would see that I said it was a good idea, not a proven fact.

You're the one who said it was false to assume that the Doppler shift applies to light in all situations. I showed you that it does apply, even here on Earth. That part of the conversation had really nothing to do with universal expansion.

Ignored/// yet again....?

Ignored/// yet again....?

Don't worry Reiku. I still love you. :)

No, what I was saying is that the Earth is an oblate spheroid because it rotates.

If you're looking to put words in someone's mouth, make sure those words at least make sense. Can you please explain what you were trying to imply that I was implying? Or maybe I should just run circles around myself to show you how it's really done?
You said that the universe would be flat if it was rotating. So I deducted that if the earth was bigger, it would be flatter.

You're the one who said it was false to assume that the Doppler shift applies to light in all situations. I showed you that it does apply, even here on Earth. That part of the conversation had really nothing to do with universal expansion.
I thought we were talking about redshift....

You said that the universe would be flat if it was rotating. So I deducted that if the earth was bigger, it would be flatter.

I think you have the wrong guy, sorry.

re:
I thought we were talking about redshift....


You said...

... is just as dangerous as assuming that just because the doppler effect work here on earth with sound that it will also work in the universe with light.

You specifically said that it was incorrect to generalize the Doppler effect to include light.

Did I misinterpret you? If so, I apologize, but I must admit that it could have been avoided if you had chosen your words more carefully.

I just didn't see a point in discussing cosmology when we can't even agree on Special Relativity.

Would you like ,me to explain the SR of Poncair and Einstein?

Don't worry Reiku. I still love you. :)

I love you tooo :m:

Would you like ,me to explain the SR of Poncair and Einstein?

I would LOVE to hear you explain Special Relativity. Please, let's hear it.

I would have to warn you on the authority of Reiku's explanation though.
Most, if not all, of Reiku's threads have been moved to the Pseudoscience section.

I stay here, to help all those who don't understand physics help me understand string theory. You wish to destroy this. I will have to make a public complaint now. You have gone to far.

You said that the universe would be flat if it was rotating. So I deducted that if the earth was bigger, it would be flatter.

It would depend on the rotational speed of the universe. It has incredibly low average density, about 10^-30 gm/cm3, so I think it would stay a (3D)sphere.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/ChristinaCheng.shtml


As I remember, the Earth is 7,926 miles diameter at the equator but 7,920 miles diameter at the poles. A slight flattening.

I would have to warn you on the authority of Reiku's explanation though.
Most, if not all, of Reiku's threads have been moved to the Pseudoscience section.

I had a serious thread about space moved to a wrong section. It is down to the people concerned if they move it for unknown reasons.

And that applies to anything... BB theory, relativity, etc. You can't prove anything, you can only show evidence in favor of something. You seem to think that scientists are saying "This is the way it is. Period." But they're not saying that at all. They are saying "This is what it looks like is happening" or "This is the currently accepted theory"

Not what you're saying elsewhere where you get very insulting because I wouldn't accept a possiblity as an infallible truth.

How does that compute? Gravity, as we know it, tends to bring mass together... so gravity would work against expansion, in other words, gravity should slow the expansion of the universe. 'IF the universe is expanding, then gravity which is limited to light speed reaches ever less of the Universe so naturally expansion' would slow down less not 'speed up'. Gravity being spread out more would in no way speed the expansion up, just slow it down less.


Speed up. Slow down less. You're playing with words.

So is big bang, strings and a multitude of other modern "scientific" "knowledge".


I do believe the universe might rotate. However, to assume that just because large things rotate the universe also does is just as dangerous as assuming that just because the doppler effect work here on earth with sound that it will also work in the universe with light.

Ultimately, they may be right, they may be wrong but it needs a bit more caution in these fields till we have hard science to show us what is what. Their adherents follow the work as though it is all infallibly true, as you see from posters quoting here.

“ Originally Posted by naszvadi
It is possible if and only if the universe is finite. Don't you think? ”

Huuum.... I'm not sure. Maybe it doesn't really matter. Altough how could the universe be infinite anyways?

“ I do have an other hypothesis, instead. (Maybe a little bit better, i.e. not so difficult.) ”

Let's hear it! :)

Sorry for my late answer.
You can find it in the "Tired light" thread.

Speed up. Slow down less. You're playing with words.

You've got to be kidding me?!?!

If you're in a car speeding down the highway, and you step on the brake, you slow down. If you let up on the brake a little, then you are slowing down less, you are not speeding up. To speed up, you have to hit the accelerator.

You've got to be kidding me?!?!

If you're in a car speeding down the highway, and you step on the brake, you slow down. If you let up on the brake a little, then you are slowing down less, you are not speeding up. To speed up, you have to hit the accelerator.
He just dosen't know when to shut the fuck up, does he?. Idiot.

I've lost all patience with these clowns. I'm going to see how outright hostility works. I already know it feels pretty good...

He just dosen't know when to shut the fuck up, does he?. Idiot.


That's far from being all he doesn't know.

Want to know something else, something rather amusing? These "self-educated" dummies don't even realize that they had a total ignoramus as a teacher! :D

That's far from being all he doesn't know.

Want to know something else, something rather amusing? These "self-educated" dummies don't even realize that they had a total ignoramus as a teacher! :D
Right. Here's the way I figure it. If they can come in here and spread whatever bullshit they like, and ridicule people that actually know something, then I feel no hesitation in treating them with the same level of "respect".

Plus, in my current state of mind, it does feel pretty good... :D

Hi Folks,
Can I make a constructive contribution to this heated debate. My LAW says that the redshift proves that god created everything including redshifted light to fool us. This proves beyond doubt that evolutionary theory is wrong

Hi Folks,
Can I make a constructive contribution to this heated debate. My LAW says that the redshift proves that god created everything including redshifted light to fool us. This proves beyond doubt that evolutionary theory is wrong
Excellent contribution Myles. I was fairly certain that god created landforms with "strata" already in place just to vex future geologists also. Please continue.

Hi Folks,
Can I make a constructive contribution to this heated debate. My LAW says that the redshift proves that god created everything including redshifted light to fool us. This proves beyond doubt that evolutionary theory is wrong

Edtharan (from another forum) said this:

"if God is actively trying to create non believers, then I question His morality. He punishes non believers by sending them to eternal torture in Hell.

Think about this. If God is placing things in the world to trick me into thinking that He doesn't exist, and then torturing me for an infinite amount of time just because I believe His lies. What does that make Him? Would you consider that Ethical?"

Edtharan (from another forum) said this:

"if God is actively trying to create non believers, then I question His morality. He punishes non believers by sending them to eternal torture in Hell.

Think about this. If God is placing things in the world to trick me into thinking that He doesn't exist, and then torturing me for an infinite amount of time just because I believe His lies. What does that make Him? Would you consider that Ethical?"
Man, you are just asking for it. Using logic (which god gave you to make sure you were completely fooled by His misdirection) will land you in the innermost circle of hell bub.

See ya there...

[QUOTE=superluminal;1681352]Excellent contribution Myles. I was fairly certain that god created landforms with "strata" already in place just to vex future geologists also. Please continue.

No problem there. He laid down one layer every day for six days.

No problem there. He laid down one layer every day for six days.

MMM caaek.

You've got to be kidding me?!?!

If you're in a car speeding down the highway, and you step on the brake, you slow down. If you let up on the brake a little, then you are slowing down less, you are not speeding up. To speed up, you have to hit the accelerator.

Still playing with words I see.

Still playing with words I see.
Still playing with your dick, I see.

It would appear the alternate views have been exhausted