The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world

I will evade long posts, and answer only shortly, because I cannot afford myself this much time, that I could this week, so here is a quick answer:
I'm simply saying that you should do models and explanations on how much is provable and testable and directly observable, none should make models if they are beyond experiments to test and prove.

Light bulb is an truly the most ordinary example-on my stuff works website you could see all those explanations regarding how light bulb works-and none of it is testable, since you do not and you cannot test and prove those models that quantum mechanics offers.
Quantum mechanics says about atom, atom's nucleus and flow of electrons and etc. but none of this is testable, the only thing you can test is what you can directly observe in this macroworld, and how the light bulb behaves, you cannot create models and hypotheses that are untestable once you mention atoms and electrons-that is my point.
The models that are predictive and that actually work are not those models/hypotheses that untestable hypotheses like QM and relativity are or they are misinterpreted at best based on what you can directly observe, models are predictive and do work thanks to experiments and conclusions from experiments, plus non-stop testings and trials and errors.

I already posted above I'm not against you scientists making all kinds of hypotheses, but none of you has the right that models/hypotheses like QM, relativity and similar iareactually proven, those hypotheses/models like relativity are misinterpreted on what is actually tested and proven, while QM is pure guess and nothing more.
Plus everyone should evade terms and wrong concepts like that something/everything is created from absolutely nothing-like big bang hypothesis claims because that's 100% proven wrong.
That's all from me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read m answers about modelling here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...the-western-world.158483/page-30#post-3440100
Please also read my answers and posts about modelling on previous pages, 26th page, 27th page to 29th page.

I already explained on those pages to JamesR and o all other posters why we can never know what exactly scientists have proven, when it comes gravity waves, I don't have time to look for it and copy posts about, and like I said on previous pages GR is simply misinterpreted because some evidences and etails are not taken into account, only evidences that are interpreted by the model are taken into account, that's why I said facts and evidence actually adapt to models, and it should be the models that adapt to facts and evidences.

Also, models that are exactly based on evidences and facts and conclusions that are based on testable and provable models, not from models that are untestable and unprovable-like QM for example.

Atoms do not exist, I already posted on 29th page I think as answer to JamesR, how Rutherford did not prove existence of anything the same as blind man/blind scientists cannot even test and prove that even an indication of a frog and anatomy of the frog exist, unless someone who can actually see tells him/her about it.

Read here about Rutherford and those so called "evidences":
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...the-western-world.158483/page-27#post-3439450

On the same 27th page I explained why what you claim evidences are not real evidences, they come only from models, not from experiments-facts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK I go with that √

Wait

Whoooo

When did you test (prove) Big Bang wrong?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, no, what I said is that the Big Bang hypothesis/model is simply untestable and unprovable, plus all those other evidences that are misinterpreted, plus the untestable dark matter, dark energy, inflation and similar-when it comes to big bang model there are too many things and assumptions that are simply untestable and unprovable.

 

The goal of science is to prove whatever it can prove to exist, and the only reason why science cannot claim that it has proven something is because that it misinterprets the evidences-the other reason is out 5 senses and perceptions that are truly limited, for example; when blind people who have never seen an elephant and never even heard of elephants so, when they first touched elephant's ear, they interpreted elephant's ear as leaf, not as ear-what is actually true?
So, even though what is actually proven to exist, it is actually proven, but the problem is what interpretation is correct, the interpretation is always wrong if you cannot see the whole picture/the entire reality-so it's not about evidences, it's about interpretations if they are right or wrong.
But science cannot prove anything anymore, since directly observational evidences are outside of all our, limited senses and outside of all our limited perceptions.

I already explained on 27th page, on 28th page and on 29th page an on 30th page to JamesR and to all other posters why everything you posted is truly unprovable and untestable-especially since you mentioned, the unobservable QM and misinterpretations of GR and similar.
I really do not have time for explaining and copying my own posts and sending you links.

The problems with models are simple atoms, nuclei of atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons and everything else is untestable and unprovable to exist in the first place, this is why above I have gave how physicists explain light bulb and its process, but none of this testable and provable, since it is not directly observable in any way on any level, in any form.

 

Since you are steadfastly refusing to comment further on your claim that you have discovered room temperature super conduction, I assume that is your passive way of admitting that was a googy thing to have written.
Looks like there is at least one thing we can agree on.

 

Sorry, I missed that part, but here is the key difference with superconductivity-you can and you do actually directly observe effects and you create directly testable conclusions, can you do the same with QM and similar hypotheses? The answer and the facts are simple and 100% proved: No, you cannot directly observe effects and create testable and provable conclusions.

 

Try again

Plus everyone should evade terms and wrong concepts like that something/everything is created from absolutely nothing-like big bang hypothesis claims

I'm evading etc etc

because that's 100% proven wrong.

By whom?

I don't know how it can be proven wrong

• when you can only prove what you can see by direct observation
• besides which you cannot prove a negative

You can say the model doesn't fit the observations and this other model does

But I almost forgot you don't believe in models silly me

That's all from me

So I appears you are the only one with their hand up claiming the claim

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, I tried, but you seem unable to rise to the challenge of debating specific instances properly, and have simply fallen back on amply refuted falsehoods and generalisations.

I'll leave you to it then.

..[click]...

 

You haven't explained anything - cause you're wrong.

You haven't explained anything - cause you're wrong.

 

How about by all observations and by all evidences.

If you cannot prove or disprove anything experiments than models are fairy tales and they are useless.

Do you even read my posts and answers, I said that in order to create models you first need to make experiments, but you cannot create models based on something that is truly unprovable and untestable.

 

I did explain everything from 27th page to 30th page, but none of you is reading anything at all, what I wrote in the last 30 pages, the main question is do you even understand at all what I post, most likely, the answer is no, so there is no point of posting answers and explaining to you or to anybody else anything else anymore.

 

I have nothing against hypotheses, just please don't claim/don't post/don't talk they are proven, they are untestable assumptions and that's about it.

 

Nobody takes you seriously.

 

By WHOM?

Observations and evidences are not WHOMS

If you can provide links to said obs and evis they might give WHOMS so they would be accepted

Above to confusing to understand and decipher and pick apart

And far to late to contact Alan Turing

OK I want to do an experiment

So many to pick from

If only I had a model to give me guidence

But I can only make a model if what I want to model is provable and/or testable

Well if I know it is provable I must know its been proved

And if I know its testable I must know its been tested

I wonder if it's to late to get that septic tank cleaning job mum wanted me to take when I said I wanted to be a scientist

Or should I just go on the dole?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

but none of you

Should read

but nones of yous - plural

the main question is do you even understand at all what I post,

No

most likely, the answer is no

You got that right

so there is no point of posting answers and explaining to you or to anybody else anything else anymore

I doubt if anything thing you posted explained anything to anybody

But as I understand it this is a catholic forum so all are welcome to drink from the fountain of knowledge

Just don't dribble in it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's because everbody lives in unprovable and and in untestable models.
Beer, I already explained everything from page 27 to page 30,, you obviously have no idea what I wrote, since you don't even understand anything what I posted, I simply posted facts and the truth that none wants to even hear about, let alone say it/post it.
How can anything that is untestable and unprovable in experiments and with direct observations be part of science? It can never be part of science.

How can anything that is untestable and unprovable be considered as "evidence"-evidences from mathematical models that are not directly observed and proved in experiments are not real evidences-they are pesudo-evidences; only conclusions, indications and evidences that you can directly observe inside experiments are what should mathematical models be based on, and that's it, no more, no less.

Get down on earth, please.

 

Micheal I already explained everything, you obviously have no idea what I have been writing from pages 27 to pag 30, since you don't even understand anything what I posted, I simply posted facts and the truth that none wants to even hear about, let alone say it/post it.
How can anything that is untestable and unprovable in experiments and with direct observations be part of science? It can never be part of science.

How can anything that is untestable and unprovable be considered as "evidence"-evidences from mathematical models that are not directly observed and proved in experiments are not real evidences-they are pesudo-evidences; only conclusions, indications and evidences that you can directly observe inside experiments are what should mathematical models be based on, and that's it, no more, no less.

Get down on earth, please.

 

Got down on earth

Got Melioidosis

Didn't like it

Went to the doctor

He couldn't test for it because he couldn't see it and he couldn't experiment because that's unethical

He told me to go home and wait for death

But death didn't turn up

Or if he did it might have been when I was having a granny nap and I didn't hear the door bell

Any way I'm not going back on earth and risk getting Melioidosis again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Looks like you and I are both wrong

Along with all those pesky Scientist who can't prove NUFFINK because they don't understand NUFFINK and they don't read this post

So they should read this post and learn SOMEFINK

And you and I are locked out of this overflowing font of wisdom

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!