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

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I did not call you a troll so you lie.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    The Borg are fictional don't you know.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Yes, they are fictional but they are example of how sciencs thinks, on what mainstream, modern science is all about, if science says this is correct and this is correct, the same with Borg-no critical questionings only the same calculations and nothing else.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    But I bet you do think so, like everyone else do, without looking at themselves first and see where they are wrong.
  8. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    I don't have time, right now, but I discussed recently on 19th or something with James R about space thing and with Paddoboy somewhere from 8th page, I think.
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Those damn blind people why do they have to touch the elephants why can't they leaf them alone.
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    No I don't think that at all.
    I think you are interested in science and it is your belief they are going about it all wrong.
    I have been decent to you but you fail to see that.
  11. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Typical, you are just laughing, you do not want to understand the points I posted about this real-world example, the difference between elephant's leaf and elephant's ear and the direct observation of reality and its misintepretations and correct interpretations.
  12. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Yes, sure, but not eve trying to understand at all what I was writing all this time.
  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Just trying to cheer you up because you sound so upset.
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I do try but you are all over the place.
    I know you have little spare time but it would benefit you to pick one example such that we can discuss it... Pick just one problem.
    You are trying to deal with too much all at once.
    Let's talk about black holes that way you can point out why you think math is not working.
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I don't lie and you can trust me to treat you decently.
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    The Universe (balloon) is expanding into a Infinite Void which has no dimensions


    Within our Universe there are only 3 dimensions

    The so called 4th dimension time does not exist because TIME does not exist

    Don't think this correct

    The Universe is FINITE but

    will continue to expand forever into the Infinite Void

    It will continue to become more disorganised and (my best guess) all the atoms will ' fall apart ' leaving a ' cloud of expanding energy '

    After that my 3 neurones have no idea

    Think I can go along with that

    May I suggest you put your ideas into a point form which I find easier to follow

    Can't speak for others

    Also try not to mix social commentary in with science discussion

    You will never get a tasty cake from such a mix
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    ' This is why blind people who have never known about the existence of elephants will say elephants' ears are actually leafs when they touch '

    Not if they have had experience of leafs

    If they have no experience of leafs and touch elephant ears they can only say don't know

    My main use of mathmatics is making sure I get the right change at the supermarket
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Or elephant dung?
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Well, one often finds leafs closely associated with trunks.
    Michael 345 likes this.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Once again, you have mostly repeated your claims that mathematics is useless and that scientists can't know stuff and that scientific theories are wrong. That's all well and good, but unless you can explain exactly what's wrong and why it's wrong then you're just making empty assertions. I have invited you to give a specific example several times now. Have you got a specific example you can give, or is it all just rage against the machine with you?

    You keep telling me there are so many holes. I'd like to discuss just one of those holes with you, in detail. Can you pick one you're knowledgable about? Then we can discuss it.

    That's why I'm asking you to show me an example of one of the holes. If I'm as blind to the holes as you claim, then maybe you'll open my eyes.

    I asked you where I can find some pure energy. You haven't attempted to answer that question. Why not?

    It seems to me that numbers exist in the world. For example, I can count my fingers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 on my left hand, say. Do you think that associating the number 5 with my fingers is something disconnected with the real world?

    As for energy: ok. So you claim that energy is so much more than the ability to do work. Tell me what more there is to it that I need to know. What is the true nature of energy that I'm missing? What can you tell me about it that will show me it's not just a number?

    So you're saying that energy is both a substance and a kind of activity. Is there anything else that is both a substance and a kind of activity in the world? I can't think of anything else like that.

    I know the mathematical definition of energy in terms of the work done by a force, of course, but nothing in that definition says that energy is a form of activity or a substance. And besides, that's a mathematical definition that you probably wouldn't agree with anyway because it's mathematical.

    Can you tell me what your preferred definition of energy is, perhaps?

    Are you saying electricity and energy are the same thing?

    Electric currents and fields are always associated with charged particles, so I can't see how an electric current, for example, could be the "pure energy" substance you think energy is.

    You might argue something along the lines that if you hook up a flashlight battery to a bulb then chemical energy in the battery is transferred via electrical energy in the wires, ending up as energy in the emitted light. But right there you have a supposedly single thing - energy - associated with three quite different physical phenomena: chemicals, electrons in a wire and visible light. So what's going on there? Is a mystical "pure energy" substance being somehow transmitted from the chemicals to the wires to the light? Could we perhaps isolate the energy substance itself, separate from the chemicals or the electrons in the wire or the photons in the light? If so, how?

    Or could it be that the energy is that circuit is just a number that we can use to keep track of the complicated process by which the battery's chemicals gradually run down as the light stays on?

    I'm not insisting my interpretations are correct. On the contrary, I am inviting to you explain to me how and why they are wrong.

    Can you post that example for me? I'd like to see it.

    I'm still waiting for you to show me just one hole.

    So there's no possibility that there could just be small mistakes, but overall the general gist of the explanation could nevertheless be correct? One little thing wrong means the whole house of cards that we call science collapses, does it?

    I don't remember ever claiming that the universe exists in nothing, or in a dimensionless space. Who does claim that?

    I was just presenting you with an analogy to consider. You haven't actually explain why the analogy doesn't work. But let's move on.

    How do you know there is no such thing as higher dimensional space? Note: I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just asking how you know.

    How do you think the everything else was created?

    I'm flattered that you think I have some kind of privileged place in this religious society of scientists/mathematicians or whatever, but I don't see science in the same way you do. As far as I'm aware, there's no scientific dogma saying the universe exists or expands in nothing. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that hypothesis would even be testable. And if it's not testable, at least in principle, then it's not scientific.

    I think I'm happy to agree with you on that: something can't exist in nothing. Ok. So now we've got that out of the way, where to now?

    No, I think you've got the big bang theory wrong there. The big bang theory says the universe expanded from a very small size to the size we see today. It describes in quantitative detail how that might have happened, and it makes testable predictions about what today's universe ought to look like if the theory is correct. But it doesn't, to my knowledge, make any statements about the universe existing inside nothing, or that the universe exists in a dimensionless space, or anything like that.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Can you point me to a particular post where you pointed out specific flaws in our current theories of gravity?

    Can we perhaps consider a real-world example?

    It is observed that when monochromatic light is shone on a metal surface, electrons are sometimes emitted (and can be detected fairly easily). It is observed that if the light has a wavelength greater than a certain amount then for a particular metal no electrons are emitted, but with any shorter wavelength electrons are emitted. There is a simple quantum model that explains this (for which Einstein won the Nobel prize). The explanation describes the interaction between quantised photons of light and electrons in the metal surface.

    Do you agree that this is a relativity simple experiment that can be done in practice, or do you think that we can't observe anything directly concerning the interaction of light shone on a metal?

    If you think the quantum explanation of the photoelectric effect is 100% wrong, or whatever, then what alternative explanation do you propose for the observed dependence of electron emission on the wavelength of the light used?

    A physicist would say that Einstein's quantum model for the photoelectric effect is a good one because it makes predictions that match what is observed in this particular experiment and in other variations of the photoelectric experiment. But it sounds like you would say that Einstein's model is useless, just because it's a mathematical model of something happening on the subatomic scale and we can't directly observe that scale (whatever you mean by "directly observe").

    If you were asked to predict what maximum wavelength of light would be needed to eject electrons from a given metal, how would you go about that? Would you guess? Would you say "No prediction can be made, because the processes involved are not directly observable"? Would you throw up your hands and say "Science is bullshit!" and storm off in a huff? Would you say "The photoelectric effect has no value to my life in the real world, so why should I care!"? Or what?

    Next time you use the digital camera in your cell phone, think about this: without Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect, that camera wouldn't exist. We'd have no idea how to begin to construct such a thing. Unless you have some better way of doing science than Einstein did, of course.

    A mathematical explanation allows us to predict what will happen for a given wavelength of light shining on a given metal, before we do the actual experiment. How are you going to do that without using mathematics?

    It's no delusion as to whether electrons are emitted from a metal when light is shone on it. Either you detect them or you don't. But we don't directly observe an individual photon interacting with an individual electron in the metal; that's the mathematical model.

    What are you doing to replace that mathematical model with that will adequately do the same job?

    Yeah. Who would want to live in a world in which they live for twice or three times as long, on average, as their great grandparents, due to all that silly "scientific" medicine and technology and stuff that 100% wrong mathematical science gives us? Scientists surely are the greatest criminals for giving you the lifestyle you take for granted every day.

    And you live in a cave somewhere and are typing your posts on a bicycle-powered laptop, I assume.

    Why don't you believe anything science says? Because you don't understand the science? Because you don't like it? Because your political affiliations mean you view scientific facts as political?

    You ought to watch the weather forecasts for a week or so and check their accuracy for yourself. You might be surprised.

    Lucky thing you're immune to all that, isn't it? Other people are gullible fools, but not you.

    Are you sure you're thinking for yourself about all this anti-science stuff and not just accepting somebody else's propaganda because you don't perceive them as "official", and therefore imagine they are trustworthy and knowledgable?

    I agree with you. Science is reducing job opportunities by making things more automated and less reliant on manual labour, for example. If that leaves some people poor and hungry, that is a bad thing, but it's not the fault of progress. It's the fault of the economic and political leaders in being too slow to restructure economic circumstances to adapt to the changed world that science brings.

    Yes. Shame on them for facilitating your access to plentiful food, fresh water, technological marvels, freedom to travel to all corners of the world at relatively low cost etc. etc.

    Religion didn't build the computer/tablet/phone that you're reading this post on. It didn't build the x-ray machine the doctors used when you last broke a bone or had a filling in your teeth. It's so strange what science managed to do for you without having any real evidence of anything.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    All controlled scientific experiments involved eliminating, as far as possible, all influences on the experimental results apart from the ones you're trying to measure. In the case of gravity wave detectors, truly herculean efforts have been made to eliminate or take into account all sources of vibration other than gravity waves. There's far too much detail for me to even start on, but you can look it up online if you're interested.

    Again, let me give you an analogy. Your radio has some buttons that let you select a particular radio station. Those buttons link to circuitry inside the radio that selectively make the radio circuit resonate in a particular frequency interval in the radio spectrum, depending on which station frequency you choose. Without the oscillator circuit in the radio, you'd hear a whole range of frequencies at once and your radio would produce only noise (like static).

    The air around you is full of electromagnetic radiation. Considering just human-produced radiation, there's all the radio stations, TV broadcasts, radio communications used by the emergency services, aviation and other things, not to mention very different frequency radiation such as visible, UV and infrared light. Then there's radio noise from space, from the atmosphere and from various sources, both human and natural.

    Your claim that it is impossible to isolate gravity waves from other vibrations is equivalent to your saying that it is impossible to build a radio that you can tune to just one radio station. Your argument for radio would be that "the whole electromagnetic spectrum is interconnected and affected by matter and energy, so nothing can be isolated".

    I hope by now you can see how silly that particular claim of yours is.

    It's a process of elimination. You consider: what are all the things that could make this detector vibrate? Next: how can I eliminate all those sources apart from gravity waves? Then: you observe that your carefully-designed detector has detected something after years of careful effort in designing and building it. So, you tentatively conclude that it has detected gravity waves.

    You also check that the various features of the detected waves match what you expect those features to look like for gravity waves, of course. And for that you need a mathematical model of what gravity waves ought to look like, which requires that thing you most hate: a mathematical physical theory of gravity.

    At the end of the day, of course, even with all your fancy theory and data, you can never be sure you detected gravity waves. Those vibrations could be caused by a completely new phenomenon nobody has yet thought of and which you didn't consider in your careful design of the detector, but which nevertheless have a very similar signature to the expected gravity waves.

    In my radio analogy, your question is like asking: assuming you can tune a radio to a particular station, how can you be sure you heard Beethoven's Ninth Symphony and not Beyonce's latest hit on that station? Answer: you have some expectation about the kind of sound Beethoven's Ninth makes, and the kind of sound Beyonce makes. It is always possible that Beyonce's latest album is full of classical music inspired by Beethoven, of course, so you can't be 100% sure.

    It's all well and good to say that, but do you know how much effort those guys and gals who built the gravity detectors went to in order to eliminate electromagnetic noise?

    No. The model only stops being successful (never mind "correct") when its measurable predictions fail to match experimental or other observations of the real world.

    Only that's not how scientists really think. Nothing in science is ever considered proven forever and ever. All science if provisional and subject to revision in the light of new evidence. Science is self-correcting. It's one of its greatest strengths, and something that fundamentally distinguishes it from the religion you imagine it to be.

    I'm all ears. Explain a particular criticism you have and we'll work through it together (as long as it's something you and I are qualified enough to evaluate).
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
    Ophiolite likes this.
  23. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    What's wrong with you I already posted in previous posts what is so wrong-first thing is that you need to learn reading and than understand what you have read.

    I already told you space and gravity.

    Again, I have given to you, are you blind or what????

    I never said anything about pure energy, there is no such thing as pure energy, since energy alwys exists in some form.

    I cannot believe how stupid mathematicians can truly get, this is the lowest I have ever seen so far. So what if you have fingers, do you actually see numbers in the nature no you don't otherwise you would see 1,2, 1000 everywhere, you count fingers, but fingers are not made of numbers, just like nothing in nature is.

    That is the main problem with you, mathematicians, you don't know none knows, the job of science is try to answer this questions, without using math and statistics, because with such tools you only calculate, you never explain anything.
    None know what energy truly is, the only thing we know it exists in all kinds of forms. Maybe the entire universe is just a physical and dimensional form of energy.

    Yes, it can, if energy is so crucial for existence of entire universe and everything in it, than it's the most fundamental substance that exists.

    I'm only saying that energy is much more than just an abilit to do work, it's what enables work, and in entropy there is useful work, and yet energy still exists in different forms-like heat for example.

    No, I'm simply saying the fact that electricity is not made of numbers-and it exists and it is a form of energy.

    Obviously we can isolate energy if we can use energy for uses in every day life, what kind of question is this.

    I already explain, but you either you are stupid or you simply don't want to read anything.

    I already posted to you, you obviously do not want to read them at all.

    Not science a whole, only physics in this case.

    How exactly I did not explain-you are the who creates idiotic assumptions that 3d beings create space, no space is not created, you cannot expand if there is nowhere to expand into-you are basically saying that those 3d beings are creating space, the more they walk/crawl on 3d surface-how stupid and how much wrong this can go????
    You are forgetting the fact if there was no space there would not be any crawlingin any direction-space first has to exist in order for anyone or anything to expand-because if space does not exist-you will simply hit the "wall" and you would not be able to crawl further-since there is no space that exists-I cannot believe how wrong matthematicians can get, you really need to go to reality check shower, before you continue to debate with anybody.

    I have questions for you: what makes you think it has to be higher-dimensional, why it is not 3d space, 3d expansion in 3d space.
    I hate when scientists say it has to be higher-dimensional, no it doesn't have to be, and such reasoning is stupid and wrong.

    That is the problem it is not testable, forget principles, we need real tests-and only an idiot would say that universe can exist and expand in nothingness-again something that has physical dimensions cannot exist and expand in/inside dimensionless-that's a fact-you created your own paradox for what?
    And you actually believe in it?
    How exactly this is not dogma.if it's based on totally wrong assumptions????
    Wake up.

    I have to admit to you that you are the first one to actually admit this, I'm actually extremely shocked in a good way, you cannot go against facts, you cannot call any hypothesis correct if it's based on absolute impossibilies.

    This is the problem you and the rest of the gang don't seem to realize-big bang is not testable, at all, inflation, dark, dark energy, cmbr (it's from the stars, planets explosions and its leftovers not from expansion), you cannot really test any of those in the real environment-that's the whole problem-the same problem is quantum mechanics-you don't know what you have detected, since you cannot directly observe it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page