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

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Gravage, Dec 20, 2016.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### GravageRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,241

You are all foolish because of the fact you all think the same you don't even questiong anything, and when people tell you what to question and criticize and what exact expalantion of the phenomenons are you call them crackpots and you laugh at them-yes, this is typical behaviour of religious fanatics in religion called mathematics, statistics and computer models-you are so limited in your thinking because you only calculate, you never think, you just caluclate, this is why I'm not surprised that both general relativity and quantum mehcanics are both wrong-since they cannot be unified among all other reasons I posted about in previous posts.
If math cannot explain anything at all what people ask, than it's not basic and necessary it's 100% useless, you just have to abandon it once and for all.

You said: What I don't understand is if you do not use math how can you work out anything or record results.

That's because this is total manipulation of expanations of direct observations in experiments-why don't you simply try to explain without using math, using knowledge that we already know?
Without using mathematics is the only truly 100% objective way to actually know what exactly you have proven in experiments, what experiment proves not what mathematics proved, that is the key.
But none wants to hear about this, let alone accept these facts and objectivism, because mathematics will say something and than will create more hypotheses which will intepreted as proven in experiments, even though you did not observe in experiment what mathematics say?
In experiments, it should be interpreted what is seen, not what mathematics, statististics and comupter models say it is proven-because that pure fraud and manipulation of the real results on what truly and exactly was directly observed.

Last edited: Feb 12, 2017

3. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 71 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,030
I was under the impression that Trolls were guardians of bridges

But not so

troll1
trɒl,trəʊl/
noun
1. (in folklore) an ugly cave-dwelling creature depicted as either a giant or a dwarf.
Even found a depiction showing recommend advice about what you should not do on contact with a troll

File size:
30.6 KB
Views:
0

5. ### Xelasnave.1947Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,475
You like facts..the fact is I have not called you a troll in fact I have never called anyone a troll so you are very wrong.
If you still think I have called you a troll perhaps you could point out the post where I did so, otherwise I think you need to apologise for saying things about me that are incorrect.
If you can be so wrong on such a simple matter it suggests little you say is credible.
I don't say that I say this model says this and that model says that I do not comment to indicate I believe in anything.
You are barking up the wrong tree indicating you fail to think clearly or understand the matter I try and help you with.
You can not support what you say does that not indicate you are missing something when it comes to critical thinking. It should.
I do not take the position you say so that indicates you are lieing.
On top of everything do you want to be known as someone who lies.
Not trying to be difficult just trying to have you tell the truth and that is driven by my determination to help you.
Unfortunately you are wrong.
You rant but there is no substance in your words.
Where did you dig this up.
Science is a work in progress and as such nothing is regarded as proven.
You get taken in by journalists who report on science and jazz it up way past what scientists present.

I will stick by you and help you understand and when you do you may find your views very different.
Good luck keep up your interest and do work too hard.
Alex

7. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 71 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,030
I would like to go to the church of CERN

What would the organ and choir sound like?

I've been told your donations on the collection plate disappear at almost the speed of light

8. ### Xelasnave.1947Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,475
So I am doing some astronomy.
I am looking at a star...where?
What no reference how the hell do I find it?
I seek to record the movements of two stars in orbit.
Oh one was in one place and over a (non specified) period of time it moved by a little bit.
That's your way which is useless.
You have a be in your bonnet that has you talking nonsence.
Let's get to the heart of your complain by you presenting a specific case that supports what you say..no maths just facts..the way you like it.
Put up or tone down your ravings.
No one here can make you a fool but your good self.
So back up or back down.
Alex

9. ### Xelasnave.1947Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,475
I know what the problem is you have science confused with the church of Scientology... Right or wrong.
Alex

Messages:
11,133

11. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
35,101
Gravage:

You have posted a lot of material above, in posts #341 through to #361.

Could you please clarify whether all of those posts are by somebody else, or whether any of them (or parts of them) are your own thoughts or work? Are they all from the same source? Can you link to the source?

There are a lot of really basic errors in those posts - too many to know where to start. If these aren't your work, it is probably pointless to start in on them.

The other question I would ask is: do you understand all the material there? And what do you know of the physics they are commenting on? That is, have you taken some courses in relativity yourself, or read any standard texts on the subject? Or is all your knowledge from self-styled debunkers of relativity?

I intend to respond to your earlier reply to me, because at least I know that was your opinions and thoughts.

12. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
35,101
Gravage:

This is not an encouraging start to your reply to my post, and things don't get much better after this start. You may find that we can have a more constructive discussion if we leave out the personal insults and the name-calling.

Unfortunately, you have mostly ignored the specific points I put to you, in order to simply argue, in effect, that anybody who thinks what I think must be mad or on drugs. But you realise that's just an assertion, right? I already know your opinion, and to tell you the truth I don't much care about your feelings on the matter. What I care about is whether you can make any kind of case for your side of the argument. Ad hominems directed at physicists won't do that, you understand.

I didn't talk about "everything" being a number. I only talked about energy being a number. So, please don't set up a straw man. Stick to the point. It does not logically follow that if energy is a number then everything is a number.

I agree with you on this! In fact, I thought I explained the distinction reasonably clearly in my previous post you you.

You say energy is a substance. I say it isn't. So, I ask you: can you show me some energy? That is, "pure" energy - not some other substance that "contains" energy, but just the pure energy substance itself. Where could I see some of that? And don't tell me something like "light is energy", because it isn't. Light has many other properties than just energy. You get the idea.

Secondly, your assertion that without the "substance" called energy there would be no universe is just a re-statement of your original position, as far as I can tell. You need to put an argument for that position, not just assert it.

Wouldn't electrons (for example) still exist with mass $9.1\times 10^-31$ kilograms, even if we didn't associate an energy value with that mass? Do you think electrons are somehow created out of your pure energy substance? Where can we find that pure energy substance before the electron comes into existence? And if that electron annihilates with a position, is any pure energy substance created, or is all the energy carried off by emitted light?

Can you, in fact, point to any process that starts with your pure energy substances and makes something from it, or else starts with something else and produces some pure energy substance as the result of some physical process?

The language of physics is mathematics. You can come up with vague ideas and mental images in physics without doing maths, but when it comes to doing proper science it can't be done without maths. The physical sciences in general are useful because they are quantitative and not merely qualitative.

I spent some time earlier explaining to you why the total energy of the universe could be any number you choose. Do you have a response to that argument, other than you feel emotionally that it is BS?

You sound like you're on a pulpit. Who are you preaching to, Gravage? Is your message "Down with physicists and mathematicians!" Or is it your aim to actually convince people that physicists and mathematicians are mistaken about the physical world? Because, if the latter is your aim, rather than the former, then you need to point out where the mistakes actually lie, not just stand on a soap box and proclaim that all of "them" are wrong.

13. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
35,101
(continued...)

Please explain what you think would annihilate each other, and exactly why. Your claim doesn't seem to be connected to anything I wrote there in the paragraph you quoted.

I already know that's your opinion. We've covered that. That's why I asked you to point to any actual flaws in my explanation. Can you do that, or not? And by actual flaws I mean show me where "my" theory doesn't work, or gives incorrect answers when checked against real-world results, or whatever. Show how it is inconsistent with "reality" in some way.

Why is it never zero? Explain what is wrong with my explanation of atomic energies - i.e. respond to the actual detail in the paragraph you quoted in order to post this one-line response.

Is it that you believe that an atom contains the magical "pure energy substance"? Where can that substance be found in the atom, exactly? How does it behave?

My claim is that energy only exists as a number in your head. Or, rather, that "pure energy" substance that you imagine in your head is more properly just a number that somebody made up and found to be useful. Since then, people have tried to attach useful mental images to that number, and you're the inheritor of a common-enough mental image.

Woah. Stop there. Is energy a substance, or a form of activity? Because those two things sound pretty different from one another.

What does a "form of activity" look like in the real world? How can one distinguish energy as a form of activity as distinct from any other form of activity?

Those are some very general statements that need unpacking. I notice that some of your posts above talk about experiments in relativity - mostly historical ones - but from what I've read of those posts there are quite a few misinterpretations right there on the part of whoever was the author there.

Lies, damn lies and statistics, hey?

I disagree with you that it's possible to prove anything with mathematics. For example, it's impossible to prove a statement like 1+1=3 if we accept just a few common-sense axioms about arithmetic - axioms that all scientists and statisticians routinely accept, by the way.

You already sound religious. You mostly just declare that certain things are bullshit and 100% wrong, but you don't make an argument to show why they are wrong. You sound like you're preaching to some kind of presumed audience. Who are they?

Imagine you're an ant crawling along the surface of a balloon as it is being blown up. The "world" you're aware of as the ant is confined to the two-dimensional surface of the balloon. Over time, the space in your world increases in size (e.g. it takes you longer to return to your starting point if you head off in a straight line at the same speed in one direction on the surface). New surface area seems to be continuously appearing from nowhere.

One way to picture our own universe by analogy is that we're three-dimensional beings crawling along a 3-dimensional "surface". That surface could, in principle, be viewed as "blowing up" in a higher-dimensional space. So, "new space" seems to be continuously appearing from nowhere.

I suspect you won't like this analogy, probably because of your avowed aversion to mathematics.

As an alternative, you might like to consider the idea that the universe is spatially infinite in extent, in which case it needn't expand "in" anything. Stuff can just move apart into already-existing space. But maybe you don't like the "mathematical" idea of infinity either?

Who says the multi-dimensional universe exists in "nothing"? What do you mean by "nothing"? How can anything exist in "nothing", and who says it does?

14. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
35,101
(continued...)

Great! Perhaps we can discuss a few of the many holes in detail, then. Perhaps if you can pick one particular hole to start with. We could do it in a separate thread. Pick something easy to start with, since there are so many holes to choose from.

Any physicist who pointed out fundamental flaws in the theory of relativity would be lauded by the physics community, believe me. Personally, I very much like to see quantum mechanics tossed out for a more elegant and powerful theory, if one is possible and it ever becomes available.

That's quite a pessimistic view of humanity you've got there, Gravage. You can't trust anybody. Therefore, throw away everything you think you know from the "experts" and believe ... what? A tiny minority of amateurs on the internet, perhaps?

I just posted in another thread about the no-brainer aspect of climate change. Add enough greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and you'll get warming; there's no way around the basic science of that. And human beings have been adding the most to the usual greenhouse gases over the past century or so. So, what's the problem in believing in anthropogenic warming, exactly? You barely have to start looking at the data in detail.

Don't you find it strange that all these evil conspiracists manage to rise to positions of influence and power, while the decent, hard-working ordinary people are mostly sheep who don't know what's really happening? Does evil always triumph over good?

I'm saying that dedicated scientists have spent decades getting to the point where they are confident enough to claim that gravity waves have been detected. And the detected signals (not just one, by the way) are - so far - consistent with what is expected given the gravity wave model provided by general relativity. If you want to refute that, go right ahead. Show how the data is not consistent with the model. Or show that the data is really noise from some unaccounted-for source. Or whatever.

You're an expect in noise isolation and signal analysis in gravitational wave detectors, I assume, and this is how you know it is impossible. Am I correct?

[/QUOTE]Wrong, no models, we had enough models, screw them, they gave us nothing...[/quote]
Every successful scientific theory is a model, like I said. What has science done for you? Open your eyes and look around yourself some time.

And you know this ... how?

What is the correct interpretation? What did all the expert scientists miss that you know?

And ... why haven't you published to correct all these silly misinterpretations? Why confine your wisdom to obscure internet forums?

I think now might be the time for you and I to discuss a specific example of your choice. As I suggested, pick a simple one to start with, because I obviously lack your expertise and I don't want to be out of my depth. With so many stupidities to point out, you should have little trouble with proving at least one easy one.

15. ### GravageRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,241
What is wrong with you, did you lose your memory or what matter and antimatter annihilate each other.

It's not an opinion it's a fact, what exactly you have done in the last 100 years, you created some idiotic hypotheses which you have no way to prove and others that are misinterpreted, plus there are so many holes in them, when people ask about these holes, physicists get angry just because you asked them, and yet they cannot explain them.
Second, someone like you who is taught by that same doctrine is not qualified to see where are thes eholes, since you think the same as the reast of religious zealots on universities and in ciorporate science.

Your delusional hypothesis that energy is number if energy was really a number, it would be merely be and abstract and not real in the world.

Again you are talking about things that do not exist ina real world-numbers do not exist in a real world, energy does exist in a real world, sure the definition of energy is the ability to do work, but the fact is energy is so much more than that.

Both actually, if there is no energy there is no activity, there is no work to be done.

Go on electric chair and see for yourself, electricity is one example.

It's a fact, why do you keep insisting that your interpretations are correct if I already gave example in previous post why space is static and 100% empty and cannot and does not change under the influence of gravity.
That's one of many misinterpretations.

That's a pur elie I had professot of mathematics who has actually showed you can prove anything you want with mathematics, one of the examples he gave me was 2+2=5, he showed me that one example.
Forget about statistics, I have seen enoug ina real life how can statistics be misused for anyone to prove anything.

Now, you sound religious, because you just love your mathematics and you don't take into account all those holes and misinterpretations.

They are 100% wrong, if you have just one puzzle that doesn't add up, than the entire hypothesis falls apart, you need to get real and admit the fact that we would never truly know how exactly universe was created, withour some real evidences-plus with correct interpretations.
If you cannot see the whole picture, only vastly small part of that picture, than interpretation of even what you see is wrong, since you cannot see the whole picture-that's fact, plus there is a problem with human perception and senses, whcih are also so much limited-and you think matehamtics will fill the holes, no it does not, it only creates more traps and more mistakes/errors, until you end up nowhere, creating totally unprovable hypotheses.

And this is where you are wrong, you forget that the this baloon world needs to exist somewhere, somwehrre where it has dimensions and space, 2d balloon cannot expand if there is nothing outside that baloon, meaing outside the balloon there are no dimensions-something that has dimensions cannot exist and expand in nothing that is dimensionless-wake up.

And this is totally wrong, 3d beings do not create space, neither does anything else-you are forgetting the fact that those 3d beings would not be able to crawl into higher-dimensional space if there is no higher-dimensional space or any other space whatsoever-where they can crawl too. I cannot believe, that you cannot see great errors in such misinterpretations.
Plus there is no such thing as higher dimensional space-if there was no space there would not be any dimension in the first place.

This is not about what I like ro dislike, it is about facts that you misinterpret by using mathematics-and you don't see in what errors this same mathematics leads you.
No, I think the universe is infinite and eternal, but everything else inside the universe is created )dust, planets, stars, galaxies-for something like this I didn't need math.

That's your question to answer, because you are the one who belongs to such religious society, not me.
Your society is telling us that universe exists and expands in nothing, not me, shame on you, and by such false statements, you are lying to the entire world.
I have already proven with 2 questions why is this 100% wrong-something cannot exist in nothing.
And something with dimensions cannot exist in nothing that is dimensionless-and that's exactly what the Big Bang hypothesis ssays and suggests-since it says there is nothing outside the existing and expanding universe.

Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
16. ### OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
Your posts, Gravage, seem filled with assertions, but precious few interconnected facts and validated observations. I sense you are deeply frustrated by the reactions you get to your assertions. Perhaps this frustration could be lessened if you actually addressed some of the points raised with evidence and sound argument, rather than emotional rants.

17. ### GravageRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,241
I already talked about gravitational influence on space as one hole, than there is time.
Than there is misconceptions that quantum mechanics is really proven-nothing on quantum level is actually proven, since you cannot directly observe anything, so all those phenomenons, you just don't know what exactly you have proven, that's the botttom line-you scientists are like blind people who are trying to figure it out what's going, and yet you cannot see anything, and the fact is you cannot actually observe what you have detect in all those experiments on subatomic level, but if you detect something detected it is proven just because math says it is proven-but the key issue is that you cannot actually see what you have proven, you simply put mathematics where you cannot observe what is truly going on in experments-that's the problem witth Quantum mechanics, while the problem with special and general relativity is because are all misinterpreted as always, just to adapt to mathematical iditotic logic.

But if all physicists see mathematical explanations as fact, and for example with gravity probe and ligo experiments-where there is no observation and no detection of space bending, why they keep saying that there is such a thing, if it isn't they are delusional-like I said before, space does not contract/bend, what is truly affected, are matter and energy and energy fields-for exampel those distance and trajectories of gyroscopes were affected gravity-but not space-also take into account the fact this was happening inside gravitational field of Earth, if there was outside the field of Earth, there would not be any effect at all observed.

No, it's realistic-it is based on facts, it's how civilization behaves like in the past the same as now it's the way how people always do and and it's exactly how the people will always do, first we had the damn religion, now we have science and technology-2 sides of the same coin-but ask people, and you'll see that people do not want to live ina world like this, it's full of stress and super rich always try to find the way to rule over poor, and science and technology is are tools and weapons that enable super rich power, this is why I said before that scientists are the greatest criminals, because they always cross lines and boundaries that shouldn't be crossed, they think they create better world for people, but they only do it for themselves.
People who seem happy with all this technology are all tech-adddict like to heroin or cocaine, so that they only think they are happy, and PRs and psychologists are all making this worse, until they catch disease from too much stress-yes, you have created a very nice world for us, only for yourself, but not for the rest of population.

I remain skpetical, I'm fully aware of climate changes, but I do not believe to anything science says while they are using those graphs, statistics and computer models for upcoming events.
Heck, you can't even predict wather for tomorrow correctly.

On the contrary, conspiracy theorists are labeled as stupid and lunatics who lost their focus with reality, yes sure some of they are lunatics extreme, but most of them are purely logical very intelligent and who do their own investigations and trust none, the fact is you cannot trust to anything official anymore these days.
The problem is with hard-working people that they are easily manipulated by official statements/investigations, and exactly because they work all day, they do not have time start questions about anything, marketing public relations, fear doctrines, these are all proven facts that work in this world just to manipulate us, from corporations, governements who work in the interest for these same corporations/companies-and of course science.
The same science that will destroy job in the future and only the most intelligent people will find jobs while the rest of the population will suffer hunger and try to survive the way they can (through criminal, or any other way.
If scientists really care about people, they would all leave corporations and help local communities, but they all truly care about themselves, to prove that their mathematics and statistics and computer models are correct, shame on them. Like I said you live in a world of glass where everything is black and white, plus you are taught that way, and other are also paid to say the same official stuff.

That's their biggest flaw they are confident, but they have no REAL evidence, they cannot directly observe them, or anything else, that is a pure faith without any real evidence; faith without any real evidence=religion.

18. ### GravageRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,241
The fact is I gave you all the evidences but you ignore them, that's the price you all have to pay when you all consider only mathematics and statistics as the only true way to desribe the universe-whoch has already been proven wrong, by example with space bending myth for one example.

19. ### GravageRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,241
No, I'm talking about the fact that you cannot isolate anything at all-that is the fact since everything is interconnected, since all those devices that are suppose to isolate gravity waves-are also made of matter and energy-so how can you claim it is isolated.

Second-although it is impossible to isolate such things, let's take they are totally isolates, you would again not know if they are gravity waves or not?
You cannot know what you have detected,if you cannot directly observe those waves and directly observe the source of these waves, the same as you cannot directly observe black holes-and that's why there is no evidence that they truly exist.
Maybe it's just something electromagnetic and that's about it.

Every successful scientific theory is a model, like I said. What has science done for you? Open your eyes and look around yourself some time.[/QUOTE]

The model stops being succesful and also stops being correct, when it creates things and concepts that do not exist in a real world, or that are simply unprovable.
Science has done fundamental mistake that everything that is created in amtehamtics, statistics and computer models is considered to be proven-that is the greatest and most fundamental error science has ever made.

I did publish about space particularly some facts none wants to hear about, but everyone laugh or get angry when you say them, I also remember a man who has asked physicists abut twin flight experiment/twin paradox about an impossiblity, that physics claims, and they got angered and did not respond anything-that's typical behaviour, if you cannot answer and if you do not know the answer, since the question would show the hole in such reasoning, just ignore them or you will just post the model says this or that and that's about it.
It's useless to waste time with people like you, and you call yourselves intelligent, obviously mathematics does not make people intelligent, if they do not accept criticism and holes in their mathematics, but your mathematics and statistics and computer models are Gods, and don't touch them.

I'm just saying the fact that tools matehamtics and statistics they are all very good to prove anything you want, something that does not use direct observations and correct interpretations of these direct observations are all waste of time and money, mathematics and statistics simply fill the gaps and the holes, where you cannot directly observe anything-and that is vast portion of science today in the last century, and that's why this is not science at all, if you play with matehamtics and statistics and with direct observation and correct interpretation.
That's about it, I don't have any more time to post and to answer anything at all.

20. ### GravageRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,241
If you cannot understand anything what I wrote, than you are on mathematics drugs and you are mathematically delusional.

21. ### OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
1. I haven't been following the thread closely. Would you chose one example where you provided clear evidence to contradict part of the accepted wisdom. Just refer to the post number.
2. I don't consider mathematics and statistics as the only true way to describe the universe. You must be confusing me with someone else.

22. ### GravageRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,241
No, you need to apologize to all those that you ignore just because they don't follow your mathematics cult.

No, because you follow the model, like everyone else, why don't you try to even criticze and question everything what the models says about, it's like you understand only what you are told, you don't accept facts that undermine the existing model-you are all like Borg, you all think the same, shame on you and you are all mathematic and statistics fanatics-with such people none can reason with.

If you think that you or anyone else can know everything about everything using mathematics and statistics and not using direct observations and correct interpretations-than you are delusional, what is wrong with you ar eyou on cocaine or what?
This proves how scientists are so much arrogent and egoistical and do not want to accept when they are wrong, because the cannot see themselves wrong, especially they cannot see their mathematics and statistics wrong, and yet they ignore direct observations limitations after which they use mathematical errors.

How exactly I'm wrong, it all about how much information you can get and how much you can directly observe, and how much senses can see and detect correctly!
This is why blind people who have never known about the existence of elephants will say elephants' ears are actually leafs when they touch-because they cannot observe the whole picture/the whole elephant-and that's why their interpretation is so much wrong, because of limited senses and limited observation of the enitre reality-and you say this is wrong?
I cannot believe you such a jerk, arrogent and religious in your faith into mathematics, shame on you, one things is what we directly observe and how much we directly 0bserve, and it's completely the other thing on using mathematics with is just a play with numbers and not the real thing/not the real observation, not the correct epxlanation

So you say mathematics can see the entire reality-I cannot believe how people can get in so much religuous fanatism into thinking their God mathematics knows everything about everything and it proves everythign about everything....

There is no progress in science if you are stuck with the same dogma ovr and over again-in this case mathematics and statistics and computer models, and not with the real direct observations and correct interpretations of what you directly observe, not somemathematical explanations that is not based on reality and on real-world evidences and based on real-world facts.

Messages:
8,475
What a pity.