This was the only word Humpty Dumpty found in the post he understood.
Humpty Dumpty never shy to show off his knowledge.
Poe knows he is a show off
The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world
- Thread starter Gravage
- Start date
- Status
This was the only word Humpty Dumpty found in the post he understood.
Humpty Dumpty never shy to show off his knowledge.
Poe knows he is a show off
Firstly that just re-enforces my revelation re your obvious delusi0ns of grandeur, secondly we have no evidence or any reason to believe the speed of light "c" was any different in the past, thirdly the inflation of spacetime, or even the expansion today of spacetime, is not curtailed by that universal speed limit of "c" which only applies to anything with mass
No it's a crusade certainly, by a unqualified anti science crank...nothing more, nothing less.
More contradictions.
Like you said, I'm just rattling off what the qualified experts are telling us. You in your delusions of grandeur and as shown, ignorance, are claiming you know more then all those experts.We have an old saying where I come from, and it applies to you many times over..."Please engage brain, before opening mouth...or in this case posting.
I have also been advised by reputable members and two mods/admins, to ignore cranks and trolls after making your original case, because they will never admit their errors and stupidity...particularly when they are in pseudoscience, and of course science will always stand on its own feet in the continued face of cranks, quacks and god botherers..
I will now leave you to your dreams and delusions of grandeur.
But hey! I promise I will keep my eyes open for the latest research and scientific data at arxiv and other publishers to see if you have made any difference to the scientific world.
I won't hold my breath though.
Last edited:
Please you again show your lack of the scientific method.
You have presumed a brain exist.
Tut tut.
Humpty Dumpty made a yoke.
And you fail to prove that Big Bang model actually works, again explain the following, basically you are contradicting yourselves:
If you cannot explain this in the quotes, than how can exactly Big Bang hypothesisi be true, this the first and the greatest obstacle in proving that the Big Bang model is the correct one, we cannot talk about anything else until you show how exactly is possible for somethign that does not exist to create something that exists, and how something that has no physical dimensions can exist in something that has no dimensions at all-again, this is why I said the Big Bang model is wrong, because of these first obstacles that you cannot bypass-prove this first and than we can talk about further, if you cannot prove this that Big Bang model is beaten to a pulp by its own cracks and holes, started by these first, above mentioned obstacles.
Again, where is everyone when you ask them this, nwhere they simply believe this is how it happened, so the Big Bang model is correct even though it is beaten by those above facts in the quote.
Again, there is no such thing as expansion of space or time for that matter read my previous replies, but I'm thinking more on space sinc eI've seen that some physicists even think that time does not exist at all.
No it's a crusade certainly, by a unqualified anti science crank...nothing more, nothing less.
More contradictions.
We have an old saying where I come from, and it applies to you many times over..."Please engage brain, before opening mouth...or in this case posting.
I have also been advised by reputable members and two mods/admins, to ignore cranks and trolls after making your original case, because they will never admit their errors and stupidity...particularly when they are in pseudoscience, and of course science will always stand on its own feet in the continued face of cranks, quacks and god botherers..
I will now leave you to your dreams and delusions of grandeur.
But hey! I promise I will keep my eyes open for the latest research and scientific data at arxiv and other publishers to see if you have made any difference to the scientific world.
You are all crusaders on me, I'm just pointing out the facts:
And you tell my that I'm wrong or stupid, just look here what do you believe in, only an idiot or religious fanatic can do that can do that, without even realizing it, what is written and shown in this quote this is simply 100% impossible.
Last edited:
This was the only word Humpty Dumpty found in the post he understood.
Humpty Dumpty never shy to show off his knowledge.
Poe knows he is a show off
And if that is stupid Michael good luck in the following:
And you fail to prove that Big Bang model actually works, again explain the following, basically you are contradicting yourselves:
If you cannot explain this in the quotes, than how can exactly Big Bang hypothesisi be true, this the first and the greatest obstacle in proving that the Big Bang model is the correct one, we cannot talk about anything else until you show how exactly is possible for something that does not exist to create something that exists, and how something that has no physical dimensions can exist in something that has no dimensions at all-again, this is why I said the Big Bang model is wrong, because of these first obstacles that you cannot bypass-prove this first and than we can talk about further, if you cannot prove this that Big Bang model is beaten to a pulp by its own cracks and holes, started by these first, above mentioned obstacles.
Again where is everyone when you ask them this, nwhere they simply believe this is how it happened, so the Big Bang model is correct even though it is beaten by those above facts in the quote.
And you still all forge tthe fact that Big Bang models fails in it's very beginning about the expansion of the universe:
And you fail to prove that Big Bang model actually works, again explain the following, basically you are contradicting yourselves:
If you cannot explain this in the quotes, than how can exactly Big Bang hypothesisi be true, this the first and the greatest obstacle in proving that the Big Bang model is the correct one, we cannot talk about anything else until you show how exactly is possible for something that does not exist to create something that exists, and how something that has no physical dimensions can exist in something that has no dimensions at all-again, this is why I said the Big Bang model is wrong, because of these first obstacles that you cannot bypass-prove this first and than we can talk about further, if you cannot prove this that Big Bang model is beaten to a pulp by its own cracks and holes, started by these first, above mentioned obstacles.
Again, where is everyone when you ask them this, nwhere they simply believe this is how it happened, so the Big Bang model is correct even though it is beaten by those above facts in the quote.
Anyway, ignoring the continued childish petulance, and pages and pages of lengthy fairy tale like nonsense from our fraudster, I just found a 2016 paper on the BB.
One would have thought that a model that has been so successful over the years, with so many papers, would be taken for granted.
Again this illustrates the fact that science is always a discipline in progress, and research will always continue as new data comes to light, or as the existing models like the BB, continue to make predictions, aligning with new observations, while at the same time, researching further the weaknesses that exist within the model, and any tinkering needed to overcome such weaknesses.
That fact alone, that the realization that the sciences in general, and cosmology in particular do still in part have work to be done on them, rather then the alternative silly peurile attempts by those suffering with delusions of grandeur, [or driven by continued beliefs in mythical constructs, which they cunningly then deny] claiming with divine certainty, that science is wrong shows why science will always triumph above and beyond the clowns, cranks, quacks and assorted nuts that attempt to deride it.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.06112v1.pdf
The big-bang theory: construction, evolution and status:
Jean-Philippe Uzan
Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris
UMR 7095 du CNRS,
98 bis, bd Arago, 75014 Paris.
20 Jun 2016:
Abstract
. Over the past century, rooted in the theory of general relativity, cosmology has developed a very successful physical model of the universe: the big-bang model. Its construction followed different stages to incorporate nuclear processes, the understanding of the matter present in the universe, a description of the early universe and of the large scale structure. This model has been confronted to a variety of observations that allow one to reconstruct its expansion history, its thermal history and the structuration of matter. Hence, what we refer to as the big-bang model today is radically different from what one may have had in mind a century ago. This construction changed our vision of the universe, both on observable scales and for the universe as a whole. It offers in particular physical models for the origins of the atomic nuclei, of matter and of the large scale structure. This text summarizes the main steps of the construction of the model, linking its main predictions to the observations that back them up. It also discusses its weaknesses, the open questions and problems, among which the need for a dark sector including dark matter and dark energy.
Humpty Dumpty found another word he likes and knows.
Poe is collecting the words for a book.
Working title "How a Little Bit of Fluff got stuck in gods Vacuum Cleaner and Made it Explode Creating the Universe"
Much more descriptive than Big Bang
Another Interesting paper on the BB......................
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.3579.pdf
The Rise of Big Bang Models, from Myth to Theory and Observations:
Abstract.
We provide an epistemological analysis of the developments of relativistic cosmology from 1917 to 2006, based on the seminal articles by Einstein, de Sitter, Friedmann, Lemaitre, Hubble, Gamow and other main historical figures of the field. It appears that most of the ingredients of the present-day standard cosmological model, such as the accelation of the expansion due to a repulsive dark energy, the interpretation of the cosmological constant as vacuum energy or the possible non-trivial topology of space, had been anticipated by Lemaitre, although his papers remain desperately unquoted.
Conclusion
Big bang models are based on observations and experiments whose results have been extrapolated as far as possible into the past (it is not possible to get back to the very beginning of the universe) and are constructed by a process of hypothesis and calculation -as is the rule in physics. No other kind of model corroborates as many observed phenomena as big bang theory. The latter, which is now almost universally accepted by astrophysicists, can satisfactorily explain the mass of observations made by the great telescopes and the results of experiments carried out in particle accelerators and retrace the principal stages in the creation of the universe – a process which took not six days, but 14 billion years! It is useful to emphasize that the big bang theory allows for many possible models (depending on cosmological parameters such as the space curvature, the ordinary matter density, the cosmological constant or dark energy field, the space topology, etc.). Some of them are now excluded by experimental data (for instance the strictly flat universe in decelerated expansion filled in only with ordinary matter, namely the Einstein-de Sitter model, much in favour in the 1930-1980’s), but the general picture (i.e. a presently universe starting from an initial hot dense configuration) is much reinforced. A confusion sometimes present in the mind of some cosmologists is that the big bang theory is synonymous of inflation theory. However, the latter – or at least the usual inflationary models – is seriously challenged by WMAP data when one looks at the power spectrum « anomalies » . Of course the « conservative cosmologists » prefer to consider that the anomalies are artifacts, coming from bad data analysis. Among those researchers who believe that the anomalies are reliable, some inflationists invoke a special feature in the inflaton field, using the well-known theorem « inflation can do everything ». However, adding special features and fitting free parameters in the speculative inflation theory to « save the apparences » looks much like adding epicycles in Ptolemy’s theory. There is no physical model behind this! Eventually, some cosmologists think that anomalies are reliable, some of them (the low quadrupole and octopole) having a geometrical explanation in terms of a finite space with a non trivial topology, while others anomalies (violations of statistical isotropy in the same multipoles) are due to local effects. My belief is clearly this one (Luminet, 2005). It would not be a fundamental upheaval of relativistic cosmology to modify, or even abandon the inflation scenario. It would be more interesting (in my opinion) to get a definite clue of the finiteness and the non trivial topology of space – but, as said above, all this is already potentially included in the large family of big bang solutions. A major upheaval would rather be related to the confirmation of more radical new views which, in the framework of quantum gravity theories such as superstrings, M-theory or quantum loop gravity (see e.g. Smolin, 2002), allow for entirely new phenomena, e.g. additional space dimensions, pre-big bang models, multiverse, etc. This would really change the present-day cosmological « paradigm ». Neither WMAP or Planck Surveyor satellites will do that. May be some high energy experiments in particle accelerators will provide hints for a drastically new vision of the Universe we inhabit.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.3579.pdf
The Rise of Big Bang Models, from Myth to Theory and Observations:
Abstract.
We provide an epistemological analysis of the developments of relativistic cosmology from 1917 to 2006, based on the seminal articles by Einstein, de Sitter, Friedmann, Lemaitre, Hubble, Gamow and other main historical figures of the field. It appears that most of the ingredients of the present-day standard cosmological model, such as the accelation of the expansion due to a repulsive dark energy, the interpretation of the cosmological constant as vacuum energy or the possible non-trivial topology of space, had been anticipated by Lemaitre, although his papers remain desperately unquoted.
Conclusion
Big bang models are based on observations and experiments whose results have been extrapolated as far as possible into the past (it is not possible to get back to the very beginning of the universe) and are constructed by a process of hypothesis and calculation -as is the rule in physics. No other kind of model corroborates as many observed phenomena as big bang theory. The latter, which is now almost universally accepted by astrophysicists, can satisfactorily explain the mass of observations made by the great telescopes and the results of experiments carried out in particle accelerators and retrace the principal stages in the creation of the universe – a process which took not six days, but 14 billion years! It is useful to emphasize that the big bang theory allows for many possible models (depending on cosmological parameters such as the space curvature, the ordinary matter density, the cosmological constant or dark energy field, the space topology, etc.). Some of them are now excluded by experimental data (for instance the strictly flat universe in decelerated expansion filled in only with ordinary matter, namely the Einstein-de Sitter model, much in favour in the 1930-1980’s), but the general picture (i.e. a presently universe starting from an initial hot dense configuration) is much reinforced. A confusion sometimes present in the mind of some cosmologists is that the big bang theory is synonymous of inflation theory. However, the latter – or at least the usual inflationary models – is seriously challenged by WMAP data when one looks at the power spectrum « anomalies » . Of course the « conservative cosmologists » prefer to consider that the anomalies are artifacts, coming from bad data analysis. Among those researchers who believe that the anomalies are reliable, some inflationists invoke a special feature in the inflaton field, using the well-known theorem « inflation can do everything ». However, adding special features and fitting free parameters in the speculative inflation theory to « save the apparences » looks much like adding epicycles in Ptolemy’s theory. There is no physical model behind this! Eventually, some cosmologists think that anomalies are reliable, some of them (the low quadrupole and octopole) having a geometrical explanation in terms of a finite space with a non trivial topology, while others anomalies (violations of statistical isotropy in the same multipoles) are due to local effects. My belief is clearly this one (Luminet, 2005). It would not be a fundamental upheaval of relativistic cosmology to modify, or even abandon the inflation scenario. It would be more interesting (in my opinion) to get a definite clue of the finiteness and the non trivial topology of space – but, as said above, all this is already potentially included in the large family of big bang solutions. A major upheaval would rather be related to the confirmation of more radical new views which, in the framework of quantum gravity theories such as superstrings, M-theory or quantum loop gravity (see e.g. Smolin, 2002), allow for entirely new phenomena, e.g. additional space dimensions, pre-big bang models, multiverse, etc. This would really change the present-day cosmological « paradigm ». Neither WMAP or Planck Surveyor satellites will do that. May be some high energy experiments in particle accelerators will provide hints for a drastically new vision of the Universe we inhabit.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Mr Gravage you say..."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."
I say this again.
You have not proven anything other than you are not able to offer a meaningful argument.
You simply make a statement which makes no sence and shows you do not understand the model and from your nonsence then claim you are 100% correct ...a claim is not proof.
You are obsessed with saying the universe was in something and by saying that you show you know nothing.
You have beaten yourself to a pulp.
People will not answer you because you don't understand the model at all and certainly not enough to present a critisizm that makes sence.
Your bluster is entertaining but you are not making sence at all.
Have you even read a short overview on the big bang theory, well of course you have not otherwise you would realise why you are beating yourself.
Look at least read Wiki , and the bits in blue, and you will understand why you are failing.
Before you look for holes you need to know what you are talking about.
Good luck read Wiki carefully don't rush as each point is important and when you have read it and the references in blue you may feel a little foolish but then you may be in a position to ask a question if you need help.
All the best.
Alex
I say this again.
You have not proven anything other than you are not able to offer a meaningful argument.
You simply make a statement which makes no sence and shows you do not understand the model and from your nonsence then claim you are 100% correct ...a claim is not proof.
You are obsessed with saying the universe was in something and by saying that you show you know nothing.
You have beaten yourself to a pulp.
People will not answer you because you don't understand the model at all and certainly not enough to present a critisizm that makes sence.
Your bluster is entertaining but you are not making sence at all.
Have you even read a short overview on the big bang theory, well of course you have not otherwise you would realise why you are beating yourself.
Look at least read Wiki , and the bits in blue, and you will understand why you are failing.
Before you look for holes you need to know what you are talking about.
Good luck read Wiki carefully don't rush as each point is important and when you have read it and the references in blue you may feel a little foolish but then you may be in a position to ask a question if you need help.
All the best.
Alex
The funniest aspect of the current crank and others pushing anti cosmology/GR nonsense, is how all rely so much on conspiracies being afoot to help support their non existent position!
I mean its a wonder some are not afraid to get out of bed each morning with all this conspiracy stuff being present.
I mean its a wonder some are not afraid to get out of bed each morning with all this conspiracy stuff being present.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
And I must say I find it amusing how some of these folk will support ID, yes even though they don't have a designer in mind, porky pie peddlers, and refer to the bible for their cosmology.The funniest aspect of the current crank and others pushing anti cosmology/GR nonsense, is how all rely so much on conspiracies being afoot to help support their non existent position!
But Mr Gravage says he has no God but he argues like folk on a christian site that I visited and he seems a little evasive if asked to speculate upon where life comes from.
I get a feeling but he says he has no God.
Not that if he did it would worry me but it could explain his ignorance.
I only hope he understands that a claim needs proof he has yet to grasp that but as you suggest he maybe young so all this will be a good learning experience for him.
Alex
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Because *c* is a mathematical equation from observation (light). But the *mathematical function* may well allow for FTL transfer of states in a world of meta-physical values and functions. An emerging imperative. Read David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order.
Your problem is that you confuse an "educated hypothesis" or *mathematically possible models*, with *lies*. Any scientist who intentionally lies about facts will be challenged by the rest of the scientific community. Just as you are being challenged now, to show on what basis your conclusion of the *Big Lie* rests.
OTOH, religions can spout every lie imaginable , without possibility of being challenged on the merits of the claim. As George Carlin said, "you have to stand in awe of the greatest BS Story ever told.
Last edited:
Obviously anyone admitting to some aspect of ID, is open to criticism and derision due to its unscientific nature......
Just as obviously anyone denying ID as any solution, would logically and reasonably be open to abiogenisis; the only possible scientific answer.
Gravage supposedly, [and stupidly] rejects both and concentrates on those areas of science that are not known with any certainty, which as we know most god botherers also do, and consequently leaving a door open for our famous "god of the gaps"
As I have inferred in post 242 here......
cue:
When a certain young crank returns......more obfuscation, more lies, more ignoring of actual facts, more crazy unsupported claims, more pseudoscience, more spitting of the dummy, and more and more of the same pseudoscience......
Ahhh well, that's what the pseudoscience section is for I suppose.
When a certain young crank returns......more obfuscation, more lies, more ignoring of actual facts, more crazy unsupported claims, more pseudoscience, more spitting of the dummy, and more and more of the same pseudoscience......
Ahhh well, that's what the pseudoscience section is for I suppose.
Anyway, ignoring the continued childish petulance, and pages and pages of lengthy fairy tale like nonsense from our fraudster, I just found a 2016 paper on the BB.
One would have thought that a model that has been so successful over the years, with so many papers, would be taken for granted.
Again this illustrates the fact that science is always a discipline in progress, and research will always continue as new data comes to light, or as the existing models like the BB, continue to make predictions, aligning with new observations, while at the same time, researching further the weaknesses that exist within the model, and any tinkering needed to overcome such weaknesses.
That fact alone, that the realization that the sciences in general, and cosmology in particular do still in part have work to be done on them, rather then the alternative silly peurile attempts by those suffering with delusions of grandeur, [or driven by continued beliefs in mythical constructs, which they cunningly then deny] claiming with divine certainty, that science is wrong shows why science will always triumph above and beyond the clowns, cranks, quacks and assorted nuts that attempt to deride it.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.06112v1.pdf
The big-bang theory: construction, evolution and status:
Jean-Philippe Uzan
Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris
UMR 7095 du CNRS,
98 bis, bd Arago, 75014 Paris.
20 Jun 2016:
Abstract
. Over the past century, rooted in the theory of general relativity, cosmology has developed a very successful physical model of the universe: the big-bang model. Its construction followed different stages to incorporate nuclear processes, the understanding of the matter present in the universe, a description of the early universe and of the large scale structure. This model has been confronted to a variety of observations that allow one to reconstruct its expansion history, its thermal history and the structuration of matter. Hence, what we refer to as the big-bang model today is radically different from what one may have had in mind a century ago. This construction changed our vision of the universe, both on observable scales and for the universe as a whole. It offers in particular physical models for the origins of the atomic nuclei, of matter and of the large scale structure. This text summarizes the main steps of the construction of the model, linking its main predictions to the observations that back them up. It also discusses its weaknesses, the open questions and problems, among which the need for a dark sector including dark matter and dark energy.
If you cannot answer simple questions that I posted above, than you don't have the answers, it 100% proves that Big Bang model in its core is wrong, because it creates it own holes from the very beginning on how the Big Bang explains the creation of the universe.
If you cannot answer simple questions that I posted above, than you don't have the answers, it 100% proves that Big Bang model in its core is wrong, because it creates it own holes from the very beginning on how the Big Bang explains the creation of the universe.
I fully understand the models, but you do not understand me my arguments and my evidences and facts that you generally ignore all the time; the very fact you don't want to answer my questions I posted above, 100% proves that you were all beaten yourselves to bloody and to deadly pulps, you like it or not, it's interesting how much you accept the logic of the models, and you have never even seen the experiments directly and did not criticize them in any way, I have seen both, so I know what I'm talking about.
You have beaten yourselves into your own pulps because of the fact you only accept the logic that Big Bang model suggests to be true, and you claim this is the only correct understanding, I have posted those tiny details that none cares about and how and what scientists miss because of the hyper-overuse of mathematics, and everyone ignores it here on the forums, you only like the logic of the Big Bang model, you hate other different interpretations, Big Bang is full of holes and everyone knows this, it's simply just you out of the rest of the world, who doesn't want to give up your own religion.
You don't even want to accept alternative interpretations of all those experiments, you only accept interpretations that stupid mathematics says-which is again stupid, obviously mathematics does not use all the parameters and tiny details that do no agree with mathematics, like the fact that nothing that has mass, cannot be and can never be influenced by gravity, (and space and time do not have gravity at all), than how I posted the explanation how exactly clocks are not influenced at all by time dilation experiments and similar stuff, that you don't even want to hear about, let alone read, than the fact that CMBR is just a radiation from exploding stars and similar, you all ignore those well known facts.
Keep ignoring and be cranks that you truly are, shame on all of you combined, on all forums.
The problem is that you or none else reads what I write, you just yell what modern scientists/priests say and their words are the only law you respect, everything alternative you call the crcpotism, not realizing that youa re the ones who are truly great crackpots lost in the Big Bang nonsense and unprovability.
Shame on you all, the soceity can never prosper with people like yourselves, the society, with people like you can only decline.
Last edited:
- Status