Deception of Big Bang Theory

'Zenbabeldom' is hyper-reality...that which we construct with the human mind - a device with more potential connections between neurones than the number of atoms in the known universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is not at all obvious. You are assuming a finite amount of matter to begin with, and that space-time cannot exist without matter. The first is up for debate, the second is clearly false in light of the vacuum soultions of Einstein's equations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Without matter, there is nothing to measure as time, nothing to measure, no time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a philisophical point at best. This is not true, say, for the anti-deSitter and deSitter solutions to Einstein's equations. These are perfectly happy, consistent solutions that don't contain matter.

 

How can time be measured through no matter?

 

No, space is not matter. Space is empty. What observations lead you to believe that space is matter?

 

Just ask the astrophysicists.

 

Of course, with all due respect, anyone who makes such claims regarding spacetime is woefully uninformed and their theories are complete garbage.

 

Just ask the astrophysicists.

 

So I asked. They said that spacetime was not matter. That QM says that there are virtual particle pairs that only manifest in extreme conditions like the event horizons of black holes, resulting in what we call "Hawking radiation". But space is definitely not matter or energy which are two very distinct things, neither of them being space. They said that the reason we named space "space" and matter "matter" and energy "energy" is because they were different things altogether (understanding all the while that just because things are equivalent, like mass and energy, does not make them the same thing).

I also asked them what they though of your ideas. They said that, on the whole, they were

"...the most laughable, selfdeluded, borderline insane, and completely ignorant" things they ever heard of. Their words, not mine.

 

You and your den of "thinkers," combined, have less gray matter than Russell Humphreys, but you're entitled to your extremely humble opinions.

Some "mainstream" physicists recently published a paper which was obviously a knock-off of Humphreys book "Starlight and Time," and I'll try to find the link, to try to increase your very limited understanding.

 

I found a bunch of credible websites listing humphreys as "...a loon". None of them were birding societies either.

 

Why does this matter? Is the ability to measure time a prerequisite for there to be a universe?

 

It's enough to drive a quiet, reserved, engineer or physicist mad, is it not?

 

So you didn't like the answer and now you're pissed.

 

Indeed. I'm sure that biologists have to endure creationists.

 

IAC is the complete package my friend. He has wisdom and enlightenment on all fronts.

 

Here are two papers from "mainstream" astrophysicists which agree with Humphrey's concepts:

M. Harwit, "Time and its evolution in an inhomogenous universe," Astrophyscial Journal, 447: 482-490, 1995.

Cl Hellaby, A. Sumeruk, and G.F.R. Ellis, "Classical signature change in black hole topology," International Journal of Modern Physics, D6(2): 211-238, 1997.

Ok, start reading, and show your friends, so that they can see who actually is self-deluded, and tell them they should get out more.

 

You guys are circling the drain on this one.

And BM, do you know what syngameon means? Didn't think so.

 

I find the best remedy for irrational argument is good science -considered statements based on first principles and the denial or acceptance of opposing theory using the null hypothesis.
I'm sure the creationists would be delighted to witness the descent of science to intellectual McCarthy-ism but they forget that science and theism are not mutually exclusive.