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

[Write4U]

I will lsiten to thiy guy I promise, but I need to find some time, as from now I would not be able to answer that much as I could these days before, I was home during Xmas time, but these days I'm working, and that includes New Years' Eve and the after the new year, I work almost every day, so, I'l try to answer as much as I find time and of course, watch and listen to what this guy has to say, but however, everything what I heard so far are basically the same things over and over again, nothing special.

Take 10 minutes of your precious time and learn something important. You seem to have plenty time to disparage Science and the dedicated people who seek objective Truth.

 

[paddoboy]

Alex and WriteW4;
What you both say is correct.
We have seen quite a few others who will go nameless, that start crusades against science in general, and cosmology in particular, all at least imo pushing an obvious agenda: I believe Gravage is among the same lot, despite his words supposedly condemning religion/god.
The reasons I say this is obvious throughout my posts in this thread.....
[1] They all inevitable reject it with such great authority.
[2] They mostly don't just dislike a certain premise of science, it's always the whole kit and caboodle of science in general and cosmology in particular.
[3] They all exclusively are uncredentialled, unqualified and obviously simple lay people.
[4] They all have a poor grasp of what it is they are rejecting.
[5] They all reject reputable links as "pop science" or similar.

It is a well known fact that science in general has over the years, pushed back continually, the need for invoking some magical deity to explain what science is unable to explain. Ancient man of course saw deities in Mountains, the Sun, Moon etc, because they were unable to explain what we today take for granted.
So much so that today we can literally describe the Universe reasonably accurately from that first microsecond, right up to today and predict with reasonable assurance what will happen in eons to come.
For that reason, I believe that Gravage has approached his crusade by keeping his mythical beliefs closeted: Others have tried the same ploy.
They then focus on certain areas where science is either not so sure, or areas where we are completely ignorant of, along with that religiously inspired "prove it!" demand.
I believe his recent rhetoric dipped in insults and obvious angst, shows I have uncovered his crusade and the ploy he has undertaken.

 

[Gravage]

Wow, dismissing the *Inflationary Epoch" as "no big deal" is an astounding statement. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14468/how-long-did-inflation-take-to-happen

A space exponentially expanding in 10-36 sounds to me like the BIGGEST DEAL imaginable.
Inflationary epoch

In physical cosmology the inflationary epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion. This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 10²⁶ (and possibly a much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 10⁷⁸.
Inflationary epoch - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch

[/QUOTE]

Again if the small universe was that massive there is no way anything culd expand in the first place, it would have to go much faster than the speed of light, so the inflation hypothesis which by itself is totally unprovable in a real universe, cannot work in any way, the extreme gravity of the universe would simply forbid the universe to expand, how come none sees that fact in the first place?????
Heck the inflation would never even happen because it would not be able to get to this point at all because of the extreme mass or extreme gravity-and that's a fact if we strictly follow Big Bang hypothesis, and all of you ignore it.

 

[Gravage]

I have been thinking about the op claim that the big bang is the biggest lie in the Western world.
Even if we accept the op is correct in its claim I think the biggest lie title could be awarded to religion (as in presenting an unsupported premise that there is a God who creates, who cares etc).

Big Bang model is mathematical religion in the first place.

So Mr Gravage what do you think when we compare the two, do you disagree that religion is the biggest lie ever?
You can see how sneeky those religious folk can be just by looking at their presentation of ID as science and avoiding comment upon who could be the designer.
If you look at the big bang, even if a lie, it at every point offers evidence and observation in support whereas religion lies from page one of the bible, with claims as to how creation took place when clearly no one was there to record such an event and nothing in the way of evidence or observation offered in support of the claim.
This approach is much like your approach to your claims.

If you don't have real evidences is the only way to know the real truth, this is how the truth actually can be known and not by some mathematical myths, mister.
And you call that religion using mathematics is pure religion, matehamtics is religion of the western world in the first place, Gods are religion in the eastern world.
None of you showed the one good explanation that would beat mine, you simply repeat like chickens what scientists say-typoical religious behaviour you don't have your own brain you have the brain of others.

You make a statement and everyone is expected, by you, to roll over and accept that you know enough to have an answer that is valid.
You in a similar fashion offer no evidence or support for your position.

How can you even say that? Have you even understand what I have written all this time, if you have, you would not write things like these, but the facts are religious fanatics find everything unprovable what is not compatible with their faith-in this case Big Bang model.

But really do you not consider that religion is the biggest lie.
Firstly it has been around much longer.
Secondly more people are taken in by the lie of religion than any other.
Thirdly religion pulls in more cash using it's lie.
Fourthly It has no basis in fact whatsoever.
I could go on but I am interested to know why you don't see religion as the biggest lie as it cons billions of people and yet you think a scientific theory with evidence maths and observation deserved the biggest lie title.
Did you not think religion is the biggest lie ever?
Alex

Big Bang is doing the same thing, non-stop, and nobody cares about this, it's a crime against free thoughts and open minds and critical thinking, you are so so blinded with religious fanatism that you simply cannot see or you actually will not see the cracks and holes-that are all omnipresent in the Big Bang hypothesis-none of you even tried to beat my arguments, you just repeat yourself in the last 13 pages like chickens without offering any rock-solid explanation-obviously these explanations that are suppose to beat mny arguments simply do not exist-if they did you would not be repeating yourself into the infinity.

 

[Write4U]

Again if the small universe was that massive there is no way anything culd expand in the first place, it would have to go much faster than the speed of light, so the inflation hypothesis which by itself is totally unprovable in a real universe, cannot work in any way, the extreme gravity of the universe would simply forbid the universe to expand, how come none sees that fact in the first place?????
Heck the inflation would never even happen because it would not be able to get to this point at all because of the extreme mass or extreme gravity-and that's a fact if we strictly follow Big Bang hypothesis, and all of you ignore it.

All proof of the extreme nature of the *inflationary epoch*!
What if SOL is just a boundary in our physical world which came into existence AFTER the inflationary epoch?
If we can break the sound barrier, who is to say we cannot break the *c* barrier in a universe that is still forming?

 

[Gravage]

I have given many arguments that refute your pseudoscientific take on cosmology, that's why your thread is where it is.
And of course I could be wrong: Even science could be wrong at times, but we can all state with the utmost 100% certainty, that you, Gravage, are entirely wrong and dishonest to boot.

Science has been wrong a lot of times, a lot of time before, already.

Yes, certainly a big deal, and evidence of science/cosmology taking account and reviewing such minute scenarios: The same reason why GR is continually being tested, despite its already accurate predictions.
More to the point your "big deal" remark, is simply an admittance of your ignorance.

What's the point of testing something if you don't know how to test and what to test that's the biggest problem with physics today-they are catching up with straws that they do not exist in the first place.
And than they use unicorns to explain GR and similar, instead of of using logical and rational mind rather than irrationality from mathematics, plus they always exclude some parts, which they should not, becuas ethey find them unimportant-lessons that science has not learned from them yet.

How many times do you need to be told that science as yet does not know how or why the BB banged.
This again highlights the ignorance and obfuscation in all your posts, and the fact that every claim you have so far made is a fairy tale.

I gave you all the evidences and explanationa, and you did not even try to explain them, but you simply repeat what scientists repeat without giving any explanations-shame on you, if you actually could beat my arguments, you would have by now, and I'd admit that you were right and I was wrong, but this is not the case, you just repeat your posts like chicken and you don't even try to beat my arguments because you don't want to read them-typical, blind religious fantism in mathematics and in the models.

Reading through your emotional gobblydook, again you appear either obsessed in ignoring answers given to you, or telling porky pies again.
Let me attempt it again ....
It is speculated based on current knowledge and research, that at the BB, the four forces were united as one "Superforce" due to temperatures and pressures involved. Again, The BB was an evolution of space and time, henceforth known as spacetime: Matter came later.

And you forget when the mass/matter were formed, the universe was still very small and with extreme gravity-there is no way universe could have expand further, just right after the mass/matter were created-you still don't get the point do you....
Yes matter came later but again when the universe was still very young and very small it was already very massive, too massive to continue its expansion, and it should collapsed because of this extreme gravity.

However, the one thing I have to mention also, going by the model, yes, all 4 fundamental forces, including gravity were unified as one superforce, but you forget the fact unifed or not even before mass/matter formed, obviously gravity also existed before mass and matter, however this gravity as one of the 4 forces unified was so great again that it could not allow universe to expand in the first place-another reason why the universe could not expand at all.

As temperatures and pressures started to drop, the Superforce started to decouple....gravity first, creating phase transitions and false vacuums.
The excesses of energy in that period, went into creating our first fundamentals.
Again to alleviate the total confusion you seem to be posting under, we know nothing about the time period of t to t+ 10-43 seconds, and are only able to speculate based on current research in particle accelerators etc.

Wrong again, and I have explained that to you...Simply put, the singularity from which the BB arose was a singularity of spacetime, not a singularity in spacetime. And of course again in that first 10-43 seconds post BB, whatever imputus that was driving the BB process and Inflation was the dominant action.

And again you forget if there is no space and time there is no singularity in the first place-dimensionless singularity is typical mathematical abstraction that simply does not exist-since it has no physical dimensions-what part you don't understand here?????
Inflation could not have happened iif it was not faster than the speed of light., and space does not strecth, as I have provern earlier in this thread.

Nothing as yet "beats" the BB model, and that's why not withstanding your emotional rantings and rhetoric, it remains as the overwhelming supported model of universal evolution.

Big Bang model beat itself because of the facts like space does not stretch or twist or curve as I have shown and proved in previous posts which obviously none understands, because of the fact when the matter was formed-it should have cause the collapse the universe into itself, but it did not and similar evidences.

Yes whether via Panspermia or not, it is certainly an open question...But again as you have cunningly side-stepped, that does not eliminate the fact that life had to have started somewhere sometime via the process of abiogenisis....unless of course you are still secretly pushing ID?
ps: Personally myself, I do like Panspermia, but again that does not get away from abiogenisis in the first place.

Ahhh, under delusions also as well as pushing conspiracy nonsense...Obviously though they do go hand in hand!
Again, let me ask you for the third time in the hope of getting a reasonable answer.
Do you support ID, or do you accept the inevitable process of abiogenisis, be that Earth abiogenisis, or a Universal Panspermia abiogenisis sometime, somewhere.



I'm only an amateur as I have explained many times, and obviously so are you.
I have read many books and what knowledge I have gained is supported by the fact that I do not have any agenda, other then the scientific methodology.
You though, by the continued ignorance shown in your posts, beginning with your absolute confusion when you ask science to "prove" this or that, up to the total confusion and wrong premise that you have re the BB being an explosion and the other fabricated issues you have raised, and claimed with 100% certainty, imo shows you up as a amateurish fraud.

Again it's unimportant if it's explosion or not, sinc eit bahaves the same as explosion, it is interesting that there is no centre of that expansion there should have been waves coming from the centre-and yet, according to science there is not any centre at all, which is again mistake from the side of matehamtical religion.
You are obviously using the methodology of religious fanatism, like mathematicians do.

Finally again, if you are so certain of this "knowledge" and your claims re cosmology being totally wrong, then why are you here? If what you say were true, you would be "Nobel" material, and not posting your nonsense on a public forum and in pseudoscience.

First of all I really don't care about Nobel prize, I hate it in the first place, second the reason why none will ever accept me because they are blind as you all are and do not see those holes and cracks in the Big Bang model, like CMBR, red shift, the fact that space does not strecth-misundestanding/misinterpretation, and unprovable quantum mechanics-since none can actually directly see what is true or what is false in these hypotheses.
None even wants to see these mistakes, let alone correct them.

 

[Gravage]

.... yeah sure!
Let me then reproduce it for the second time my young scallywag!
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

"Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.
Courtesy of AURA/NOAO/NSF.


In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours".
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As speculative as that above is, it is based on current research and knowledge that you keep ignorantly rejecting.

If you actually look at those experiments, the only thing you see is that they detect energy on quantum level-it is the damn mathematics that claims that the energy came from nothing, but that's not at all what these experiments ever show in the first place, experiments only detect energy, they do not detect energy coming from nothing-mathematics does-which is why I said how stupid mathematics can get.

 

[Gravage]

No, the 4 forces were not "in one place together"; they were unified. They were all the same force.

You presume that gravity - which did not exist as a distinct force at that time - acted upon mass like it did after symmetry-breaking.

That's exactly what I meants unified, sorry-yes, but the gravity did exist, unified or not it will prevent the universe from expanding.

 

[Gravage]

All proof of the extreme nature of the *inflationary epoch*!
What if SOL is just a boundary in our physical world which came into existence AFTER the inflationary epoch?
If we can break the sound barrier, who is to say we cannot break the *c* barrier in a universe that is still forming?

Prove that it can break light speed barrier, again another thing in mathematics that is unprovable.

 

[paddoboy]

Big Bang model is mathematical religion in the first place.

That is simply your unsupported agenda laden nonsense.

If you don't have real evidences is the only way to know the real truth, this is how the truth actually can be known and not by some mathematical myths, mister.
And you call that religion using mathematics is pure religion, matehamtics is religion of the western world in the first place, Gods are religion in the eastern world.

Again you obfuscate and fabricate unsupported nonsense including your usual infatuation with what most god botheres are infatuated with...your version of proof. .

None of you showed the one good explanation that would beat mine, you simply repeat like chickens what scientists say-typoical religious behaviour you don't have your own brain you have the brain of others.

Don't be so damn childish. This crusade your are creating, is your game, and your game only.
All the rest of us are doing is correcting your nonsense.

How can you even say that? Have you even understand what I have written all this time, if you have, you would not write things like these, but the facts are religious fanatics find everything unprovable what is not compatible with their faith-in this case Big Bang model.

Everyone understands what you have written. That's why everyone is laughing at you. Delusions of Grandeur my friend is a specified sickness, particularly coming from someone without any qualifications or knowledge on the subject.

Big Bang is doing the same thing, non-stop, and nobody cares about this, it's a crime against free thoughts and open minds and critical thinking, you are so so blinded with religious fanatism that you simply cannot see or you actually will not see the cracks and holes-that are all omnipresent in the Big Bang hypothesis-none of you even tried to beat my arguments, you just repeat yourself in the last 13 pages like chickens without offering any rock-solid explanation-obviously these explanations that are suppose to beat mny arguments simply do not exist-if they did you would not be repeating yourself into the infinity.

The BB/Inflationary model of universal evolution is the overwhelming supported model by most scientists/cosmologists and academia in general.
You'll just have to live with that.
You as you have been constantly told, do not have an argument at all...no argument, no evidence, just sheer agenda driven pseudoscience.

 

[paddoboy]

That's exactly what I meants unified, sorry-yes, but the gravity did exist, unified or not it will prevent the universe from expanding.

No, as already explained to you.

 

[Gravage]

Alex and WriteW4;
What you both say is correct.
We have seen quite a few others who will go nameless, that start crusades against science in general, and cosmology in particular, all at least imo pushing an obvious agenda: I believe Gravage is among the same lot, despite his words supposedly condemning religion/god.
The reasons I say this is obvious throughout my posts in this thread.....
[1] They all inevitable reject it with such great authority.
[2] They mostly don't just dislike a certain premise of science, it's always the whole kit and caboodle of science in general and cosmology in particular.
[3] They all exclusively are uncredentialled, unqualified and obviously simple lay people.
[4] They all have a poor grasp of what it is they are rejecting.
[5] They all reject reputable links as "pop science" or similar.

Actually it is you who reject different approach and different interpretation and does not allow revision of the known experiments in any way, which I have shown why space cannot strecth, twist or curve in any way, neither does/can time.
And people of the religious movements do exactly this.

It is a well known fact that science in general has over the years, pushed back continually, the need for invoking some magical deity to explain what science is unable to explain. Ancient man of course saw deities in Mountains, the Sun, Moon etc, because they were unable to explain what we today take for granted.
So much so that today we can literally describe the Universe reasonably accurately from that first microsecond, right up to today and predict with reasonable assurance what will happen in eons to come.
For that reason, I believe that Gravage has approached his crusade by keeping his mythical beliefs closeted: Others have tried the same ploy.
They then focus on certain areas where science is either not so sure, or areas where we are completely ignorant of, along with that religiously inspired "prove it!" demand.
I believe his recent rhetoric dipped in insults and obvious angst, shows I have uncovered his crusade and the ploy he has undertaken.

I don't care about deities, I'm just talking about the things that Big Bang model cannot cover and it is actually beaten by those cracks and holes, like the ones I am posting about the entire time.
It is you who try to keep this religious movement alive, none can andnone must touch the Big Bang model religion and the Mathematics beign the greatest God of them all, I have enoguh knowledge, that I know what I'm talking about, it is the experiments that are made and their intepretations that are wrong in some cases-like the Big Bang model.

I'm not basing my arguments onf rhetoric insultes, but on the facts that things you claim has proven, it did not prove at all, and the Big Bang model is the most obvious example.
Something that you don't understand yet, or you believe that Big Bang model like religious operson believes into a Bible-again totally irrational and illogical, and unscientific.

 

[Gravage]

No, as already explained to you.

You mean because the mass did not exist, wrong, because of there was no mass/matter like you claim there was not any mass/matter there would not be any gravity to exist at any level at any point of the universe-wrong again.

 

[Gravage]

That is simply your unsupported agenda laden nonsense.

Again you obfuscate and fabricate unsupported nonsense including your usual infatuation with what most god botheres are infatuated with...your version of proof. .

Don't be so damn childish. This crusade your are creating, is your game, and your game only.
All the rest of us are doing is correcting your nonsense.

It's not crusase it's rebellion against religious fantaics who don't even realize they are religious fanatics.

Everyone understands what you have written. That's why everyone is laughing at you. Delusions of Grandeur my friend is a specified sickness, particularly coming from someone without any qualifications or knowledge on the subject.

Delusionof Grandeur, it is you who claim to know everything about evcerything how it was created, not me, you just keep repeating yourself what the Big Bang Bible says, and that's about it you don't even try to put arguments against the Big Bang Bible in the first place, you all just accept and kneel before the Big Bang God model.

The BB/Inflationary model of universal evolution is the overwhelming supported model by most scientists/cosmologists and academia in general.
You'll just have to live with that.
You as you have been constantly told, do not have an argument at all...no argument, no evidence, just sheer agenda driven pseudoscience.

Obviously it is supported by scientists are blieve or what mathematics say, not what the evidences say, what's the point of creating experiments if they are adjusts to what exactly mathematics have to prove with what exact methods-and it's interesting how always it is proven and never disproven, just very interesting.
None even tried to beat those evidences-this is why I said it's pure religion.
Again, academics are just another type of religion, and all academics don't accept what it could detronize their beliefs and teeachings in the first place.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Big Bang model is mathematical religion in the first place.

You offer nothing in support of this claim, you offer a mere opinion nothing more.
No marks.

If you don't have real evidences is the only way to know the real truth, this is how the truth actually can be known and not by some mathematical myths, mister.

What are you suggesting its acceptable to make the truth up so long as you do not involve maths.
That's OK now I know God is on your side.
You should have said something earlier...as if we could not work you out.

None of you showed the one good explanation that would beat mine

We don't have to you are beating yourself.

you simply repeat like chickens

Yes what you say certainly clucks with me....repeating chickens now that is certainly an intelligent design.

you don't have your own brain you have the brain of others.

I thought I was remembering stuff I had never done now I understand.
You didn't notice what I did with my brain did you?

Have you even understand what I have written all this time,

Yes and no.
Its just you say things without any support.
You say there is some sort of religious maths conspiracy yet it is unclear what you mean.

but the facts are religious fanatics find everything unprovable what is not compatible with their faith-in this case Big Bang model.

Certainly many Christians see the big bang as pointing to the moment that their God created the universe but it's not fair to call them religious fanatics they are probably nice folk just like you.

-none of you even tried to beat my arguments

I am waiting for you to get to the point so we can argue the merits but you have not established anything as yet...if you have repeat it please I may have read it but left it in my other brain.

you just repeat yourself in the last 13 pages like chickens without offering any rock-solid explanation-obviously these explanations that are suppose to beat mny arguments simply do not exist-if they did you would not be repeating yourself into the infinity.

Don't tell me someone has switched my brain for a chickens brain.
I can't help it here I go again...
You have yet to make one single valid point...damn I think they switched your brain as well.

You say big bang and math is a religion well I say its not so I win.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

Science has been wrong a lot of times, a lot of time before, already.

Science, unlike you is a discipline in perpetual progress, based on the data from further observations, and experiments.
It does not indulge in unscientific pseudoscience that you are running a crusade on.

What's the point of testing something if you don't know how to test and what to test that's the biggest problem with physics today-they are catching up with straws that they do not exist in the first place.
And than they use unicorns to explain GR and similar, instead of of using logical and rational mind rather than irrationality from mathematics, plus they always exclude some parts, which they should not, becuas ethey find them unimportant-lessons that science has not learned from them yet.

More nonsensical rhetoric.

I gave you all the evidences and explanationa, and you did not even try to explain them, but you simply repeat what scientists repeat without giving any explanations-shame on you, if you actually could beat my arguments, you would have by now, and I'd admit that you were right and I was wrong, but this is not the case, you just repeat your posts like chicken and you don't even try to beat my arguments because you don't want to read them-typical, blind religious fantism in mathematics and in the models.

More unsupported lies as evident in many of my posts where I have explained your errors and the wrong assumptions you proceed under.

And you forget when the mass/matter were formed, the universe was still very small and with extreme gravity-there is no way universe could have expand further, just right after the mass/matter were created-you still don't get the point do you....
Yes matter came later but again when the universe was still very young and very small it was already very massive, too massive to continue its expansion, and it should collapsed because of this extreme gravity.

Nice to see you at least learn one aspect of current cosmology, re the matter coming later: Some progress at least.
The rest of your claims are fabricated unsupported nonsense and lies.

However, the one thing I have to mention also, going by the model, yes, all 4 fundamental forces, including gravity were unified as one superforce, but you forget the fact unifed or not even before mass/matter formed, obviously gravity also existed before mass and matter, however this gravity as one of the 4 forces unified was so great again that it could not allow universe to expand in the first place-another reason why the universe could not expand at all.

I'm doing better then expected! Another point finally recognised!
But no, of course when gravity was unified with the others as the Superforce, it was not acting as gravity acts.

And again you forget if there is no space and time there is no singularity in the first place-dimensionless singularity is typical mathematical abstraction that simply does not exist-since it has no physical dimensions-what part you don't understand here?????
Inflation could not have happened iif it was not faster than the speed of light., and space does not strecth, as I have provern earlier in this thread.

Inflation was faster then "c " and again your constant dishonesty rears its ugly head. You have been told now four times, that scientists do not accept this point, dimensionless singularity you seem obsessed with, rather it starts at the quantum/Planck level where GR and our laws of physics do not apply.

Big Bang model beat itself because of the facts like space does not stretch or twist or curve as I have shown and proved in previous posts which obviously none understands, because of the fact when the matter was formed-it should have cause the collapse the universe into itself, but it did not and similar evidences.

You have shown nothing other then delusions of grandeur and a habit of telling porky pies.
You have shown and proven SFA except perhaps that you are a crank.

Again it's unimportant if it's explosion or not, sinc eit bahaves the same as explosion, it is interesting that there is no centre of that expansion there should have been waves coming from the centre-and yet, according to science there is not any centre at all, which is again mistake from the side of matehamtical religion.
You are obviously using the methodology of religious fanatism, like mathematicians do.

Two copouts in the one paragraph, and as usual the nonsensical claims and nonsense.

.

I was being fecetious my friend!!!!
I mean you don't really believe that!!!!
On second thoughts, perhaps you do

 

[Gravage]

You offer nothing in support of this claim, you offer a mere opinion nothing more.
No marks.

What are you suggesting its acceptable to make the truth up so long as you do not involve maths.
That's OK now I know God is on your side.
You should have said something earlier...as if we could not work you out.

I don't have God, you have I'm simply criticizing your own mathematical God.

We don't have to you are beating yourself.

Yeah, right but not even trying to beat me, and all the arguments you have put so far I have beaten all of them, that's not how you can explain someone that is wrong, if you show me just one argument that beats mine, than I will admit that I was wrong in at least something, but so far I have not seen anything.

Yes what you say certainly clucks with me....repeating chickens now that is certainly an intelligent design.

I thought I remembering stuff I had never done now I understand.
You didn't notice what I did with my brain did you?

You are the legend only inside your own mind.

Yes and no.
Its just you day things without any support.
You say there is some sort of religious maths conspiracy yet it is unclear what you mean.

I have actually beaten every argument you have written so far, it is up to you that you need to prove that I was wrong, not me to prove that I'm right, the things , the cracks and the holes I am writing prove that Big Bang model cannot work, at least not in the way it presented in public.

Certainly many Christians see the big bang as pointing to the moment that their God created the universe but it's not fair to call them religious fanatics they are probably nice folk just like you.

I am waiting for you to get to the point so we can argue the merits but you have not established anything as yet...if you have repeat it please I may have read it but left it in my other brain.

Don't tell me someone has switched my brain for a chickens brain.
I can't help it here I go again...
You have yet to make one single valid point...damn I think they switched your brain as well.

You say big bang and math is a religion well I say its not so I win.
Alex

And I'm waiting for you Mathematical deity to prove that I'm wrong yet.

 

[Gravage]

Science, unlike you is a discipline in perpetual progress, based on the data from further observations, and experiments.
It does not indulge in unscientific pseudoscience that you are running a crusade on.

More nonsensical rhetoric.


More unsupported lies as evident in many of my posts where I have explained your errors and the wrong assumptions you proceed under.

Nice to see you at least learn one aspect of current cosmology, re the matter coming later: Some progress at least.
The rest of your claims are fabricated unsupported nonsense and lies.

I'm doing better then expected! Another point finally recognised!
But no, of course when gravity was unified with the others as the Superforce, it was not acting as gravity acts.
Inflation was faster then "c " and again your constant dishonesty rears its ugly head. You have been told now four times, that scientists do not accept this point, dimensionless singularity you seem obsessed with, rather it starts at the quantum/Planck level where GR and our laws of physics do not apply.

That's fine, why did we have to spend 13 pages because of this? But here is the problem, I have written in the beginning-prove that inflation ever happened-you only have mathematics and nothing more-just to let you know I was one of those who clearly thought that speed of light had to be much faster than it is today.

This is why I said this not scientific way of thinking-only if you can prove inflation directly observably, we can talk about further.

But the problem is inflation and even rad shift are all experimentally unprovable.
Again it is you that mentions that singularity was before spacetime, not me, I'm just saying that was impossible-which it really was impossible.

You also forget what I hvae written many times before in this thread and again everyone ignores these facts: the facts that something/universe that exists and expands cannot exist and expand in/inside non-existence at all-this is why Big Bang model simply is not correct.

3d universe that exists and expands cannot exist and expand in something that is dimensionless-explain that-that is exactly what Big Bang model fails to explain, it cannot explain because here, these parts of the Big Bang model are all 100% wrong-and everyone is ignoring these facts.

And this is why I have 100% proven how and why space cannot stretch/twist/curve/distort in any way, and those experiments were misinrepreted, because they did not include all the details.

You have shown nothing other then delusions of grandeur and a habit of telling porky pies.
You have shown and proven SFA except perhaps that you are a crank.


Two copouts in the one paragraph, and as usual the nonsensical claims and nonsense.

I was being fecetious my friend!!!!
I mean you don't really believe that!!!!
On second thoughts, perhaps you do

The only one who is delusioning yourself is you, the fact I wanted to post that speed of light was faster than today would be considered another crackpotism from the side of scientists made me not to post anything, since everyone are so close-minded.
But the fact is that you are a crank if you think what I have written above:

You also forget what I hvae written many times before in this thread and again everyone ignores these facts: the facts that something/universe that exists and expands cannot exist and expand in/inside non-existence at all-this is why Big Bang model simply is not correct.

3d universe that exists and expands cannot exist and expand in something that is dimensionless-explain that-that is exactly what Big Bang model fails to explain, it cannot explain because here, these parts of the Big Bang model are all 100% wrong-and everyone is ignoring these facts.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I don't have God, you have I'm simply criticizing your own mathematical God.

You have yet to make any valid critism ..
S

if you show me just one argument that beats mine,

Show me your arguement I can't beat something that does not exist.
Just one and I will beat it.

so far I have not seen anything.

Neither have I.

You are the legend only inside your own mind.

How do you know that? is it you that has my brain?
Well yes I am a legend but let's talk about your problem ..I hope you are not dropping my name at parties.

I have actually beaten every argument you have written so far, it is up to you that you need to prove that I was wrong, not me to prove that I'm right, the things , the cracks and the holes I am writing prove that Big Bang model cannot work, at least not in the way it presented in public.

All that and I some how missed it.
Are you saying you think there is something wrong with the big bang theory or are you saying maths is taught in religious schools instead of ID.

I don't have God, you have I'm simply criticizing your own mathematical God.



Yeah, right but not even trying to beat me, and all the arguments you have put so far I have beaten all of them, that's not how you can explain someone that is wrong, if you show me just one argument that beats mine, than I will admit that I was wrong in at least something, but so far I have not seen anything.



You are the legend only inside your own mind.



I have actually beaten every argument you have written so far, it is up to you that you need to prove that I was wrong, not me to prove that I'm right, the things , the cracks and the holes I am writing prove that Big Bang model cannot work, at least not in the way it presented in public.



And I'm waiting for you Mathematical deity to prove that I'm wrong yet.

I will wait with you but wait you don't understand the language that is math so you won't know what is being said.
You need to prove something just one thing...is that too much to ask.. Just one single solitary thing.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Big Bang model is mathematical religion in the first place

Except, people who believe in a mathematical essence to the universe don't pray to it and ask for favors. Scientists know that the universe and its dynamic beginning was a result of some kind of implacable probabilistic mathematical function and instead of praying for *salvation*, why not actually read some real scientific literature, by people who have *authority* to speak on the subject.