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

[Michael 345]

Interesting, Galileo had the same problems with the church and did not make a case to a church not understanding what he was saying to them.

Wasn't it the case that Galileo had done a lot of observational work and calculations but the church refused the evidence not so much because they did not understand (although there might have been some of that) but because it conflicted with church dogma (word of god, bible)?

Of course the church could not produce any proof only dogma.

I took time (which I can't get back ) to read about Eric Lerner who seems to be the church not Galileo.

His incomprehensible dogma refuses the evidence.

As one review put it

• Things can be right
• Things can be wrong
• Things can be not even wrong

Guess where Eric Lerner fits.

Humpty Dumpty who was last wrong outside his memory range and Poe who can't remember if he has a memory.

 

[surreptitious57]

The laws of physics may be written in mathematical form. But the universe is physical not mathematical
Mathematics does not exist within it but instead it simply describes it. And this is why one should never
confuse the map with the territory. They are not the same. As one is only an approximation of the other

 

[surreptitious57]

Gravage : I am going to have the claims which you have made in this thread critically analysed to see how
valid or true they may be for there is some doubt with regard to their legitimacy. Then report back to you

 

[Michael 345]

The laws of physics may be written in mathematical form. But the universe is physical not mathematical
Mathematics does not exist within it but instead it simply describes it. And this is why one should never
confuse the map with the territory. They are not the same. As one is only an approximation of the other

Personally I have never confused maps with Territory

I would question a map if it indicated 'Here be apothecary shop' as may be being out of date.

Or if the electronic GPS was showing a cross road and all I can see is I am on the middle of a bridge.

In both cases I would trust the Territory.

Most maps really only require one to one match up.

Do not require interpretation which is a whole new ball game.

Humpty Dumpty who is frequently lost without Poe

 

[Write4U]

And how do you know that Lerner is wrong, have even listened to their conversation, who says Lerner is wrong and think about them-I mean, you cannot believe someone just because he/she is mainstream cosmologist-another evidence for cosmological church, because Lerner was creating hypotheses that mainstream cosmological religion doesn't want to hear about it, without giving any explanation at all-I mean we still live in the dark ages, where every single hypothesis that does not belong to mainstream cosmological religion becomes a crackpotism-well, that is irrefutable evidence that mainstream cosmological religion is the one who is full of cranks/crackpots.
You cannot have open mind if you cannot understand or you don't want to understand what the other side wants to say to you, and the main question is do you even understand what the other side want s to explain you-you obviously do not understand me, neither are the others, or perhaps you just don't want to understand anyone who is saying something against mainstream cosmological religious movements.

The same thing Galileo was suffering with Chruch, history repets itself every single day from the day medern science was created.
Don't put Galileo in your posts, because youare the one who is defending church, not me, I'm the one who is attacking the church.

If you think that this approach is correct, than why do scientists get angry every time some unexplanable phenomenons are explained with hypotheses that belong to the realm of supernatural-and yet sicentists are doing the same thing with their own experiments since they mix up abstract and physical explanations?
Shame on you, scientists, and because of these facts people like me I considered as crackpots who belong pseudoscience, shame on you all.
Scientists, you are hypocrites.

Because the fact is, everything that is physical can be and is explainable with physical explanations , everything that is abstract is explainable only with abstract explanations, the only reason we cannot explain some mysteries is because we do not know enough, we know to little and our devices and experiments are not powerful and suitable enough to detect everything we want to be detected, that's why we don't know anything about anything, except for some minor facts, like the one we already know and that are 100% proven.

All good and well, but that does not make your abstract *model* true. There are many abstract models of Causality, but the only discipline which seeks objective truth is Science. And Science includes the meta-physical sciences and is fundamentally based on logical derivative information., which then is translated into a symbolic mathematical language which allows *insight* and understanding of the essence of the Wholeness. To date we have identified several universal constants which logically (mathematically) must be true in the physical world as well as in the meta-physical world.

 

[Gravage]

I am also interested in astronomy.
I am a member of an astronomy forum.
But astronomy is not cosmology.

I used to rant the same as you in the early days but I would listen to those who stopped to help.
And because I listened they continued to help.
Personally I don't like many aspects of the big bang but I try to learn.
What I have learnt is so much of what critics say is simply wrong because they are uninformed.
I like to think of the current model as a work in progress.
Just remember a boat can have a lot of holes but can still float.
To sink the big bang you have to show there is no expansion until you can show that the observations of expansion are flawed you have nothing.
That is the key stone in the theory.
How to do that... If you are into astronomy and a thinker you could work it out if you know sufficient about the observations in support of an expanding universe.
I could tell you but it can be your quest.
You will not arrive at how to do this whilst you simply rant emotionally and confine your activity to hand waving.
Alex

If the critics are so much wrong, why no scientist ahs ever actually beaten them in the first place?
you are not even trying to beat them, no scientist does, they take it as a waste of time, and consider such critics crackpots, which proves how sure and how dogmatic scientists truly are, and based on what I just read here in your last post, you are no difference from them.
If you don't explain to the people or give abstract pseudo-explanations, you did not explain or prove anything, this approach is heavily used by politicians all the time.

If you speak about the Big Bang model-I willy show what also additionally really beats Big bang model: basically it says that the universe in the beginning was very, very small with alo forces together and there was extremely strong mass and gravity/gravitational fields.
So explain this: how could universe form if the mass of the universe was in a such small point-with such gravity it couldn't have expanded and evolved in any way on any level-that's first.

The second fact is in order to save the Big Bang model theyhave invented Higgs boson, because hey told the universe did not have mass in the beginning, it is the Higgs boson and Higgs field played curcial role in creating the mass, ok.
Let's just see the following, if the universe when was very, very small did not have mass, how exactly the universe could have gravity in the first place, because there was no mass at all?

So if you don't have mass in the beginnings of evolution of the universe, you don't have gravity, one of 4 fundamental forces, but if you do not have gravity, the entire universe could never come/be created/formed/evolved from such small point because there was no gravity to start with, actually the universe could have never become such small point without gravity/gravitational fields, because it does not hav mass-which 100% proves there would be no Big Bang and evolution of the universe at all.
So, please you have to wake up from church's teachings and start with your own.

 

[Gravage]

Wasn't it the case that Galileo had done a lot of observational work and calculations but the church refused the evidence not so much because they did not understand (although there might have been some of that) but because it conflicted with church dogma (word of god, bible)?

Of course the church could not produce any proof only dogma.

I took time (which I can't get back ) to read about Eric Lerner who seems to be the church not Galileo.

His incomprehensible dogma refuses the evidence.

As one review put it

• Things can be right
• Things can be wrong
• Things can be not even wrong

Guess where Eric Lerner fits.

Humpty Dumpty who was last wrong outside his memory range and Poe who can't remember if he has a memory.

Yes, observational work and calculations, but Galileo did not talk about abstract inflation, singularity dark matter, dark energy-these are all entirely different things-Galileo did not try to create abstract pseudo-explanations, but the real-world explanations based on real-world evidences.
This is why I compared modern science/physics with abstract pseudo-evidences that do not exist in the real world, while Glileo was using real world examples/explanations/evidences.

Eric Lerner is not a crackpot no matter how much you want him to be, he has good points, which again everyone simply ignore because it's against teachings of the modern scientific church.
Yes, Eric Lerner is the Galileo, because science today behaves like church, he is one and there are hundreds of millions of scientists who think like one without even trying examine and criticize the existing hypotheses/models, because otherwise they would lose their fundings and would do everything to "prove they are right, but they are starting to rumble, piece after piece.

 

[Gravage]

Gravage : I am going to have the claims which you have made in this thread critically analysed to see how
valid or true they may be for there is some doubt with regard to their legitimacy. Then report back to you

It' all about evidences and intepretations, not just what science dogmatically "proves".

 

[Michael 345]

than why do scientists get angry every time some unexplanable phenomenons are explained with hypotheses that belong to the realm of supernatural-

• Because the unexplainable phenomenons are not explained with
• Hypothesis that belong to the the realm of supernatural

If the unexplainable phenomenons are explained with a hypothesis it never belonged in the realm of the supernatural.

Supernatural Humpty Dumpty and plain natural Poe

 

[Gravage]

All good and well, but that does not make your abstract *model* true. There are many abstract models of Causality, but the only discipline which seeks objective truth is Science. And Science includes the meta-physical sciences and is fundamentally based on logical derivative information., which then is translated into a symbolic mathematical language which allows *insight* and understanding of the essence of the Wholeness. To date we have identified several universal constants which logically (mathematically) must be true in the physical world as well as in the meta-physical world.

If it includes maeta-physical it's not science, plain and simple because scienc ehas to do with things that are explanable and provable, the concepts I was posting do not belong in any of these crucial areas.

 

[Gravage]

• Because the unexplainable phenomenons are not explained with
• Hypothesis that belong to the the realm of supernatural

If the unexplainable phenomenons are explained with a hypothesis it never belonged in the realm of the supernatural.

Supernatural Humpty Dumpty and plain natural Poe

On the contrary sciencc does it all the time, and than they talk about how can people believe in ghosts and gods as explanations for phenomenons, and yet the science is doing these same mistakes for, at least, the last 100 years.

 

[Gravage]

You are partly right, it is unverifiable truth or lie.
IMNSHO Big Bang is the biggest joke on science followed by inflation. I think inflation is a bigger joke.

That's exactly was the points of all of my posts, how can none see that?
However there is one thing that completely beat Big bang model, read my last answer to Xelasnave.1947:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...the-western-world.158483/page-10#post-3424978

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So explain this: how could universe form if the mass of the universe was in a such small point-with such gravity it couldn't have expanded and evolved in any way on any level-that's first.

The second fact is in order to save the Big Bang model theyhave invented Higgs boson, because hey told the universe did not have mass in the beginning, it is the Higgs boson and Higgs field played curcial role in creating the mass, ok.

You should ask someone who understands the model better than me.
Say a scientist or read up which frankly I would have thought you would have done.
Are you actually saying you don't know how the model deals with this aspect?

But its pretty basic stuff.

If you don't understand the model well enough to know how it deals with this aspect then I think you probably don't know enough to, as you say, find holes in the model.

Let's just see the following, if the universe when was very, very small did not have mass, how exactly the universe could have gravity in the first place, because there was no mass at all?

I think the model suggests the universe was in a smaller hot dense state, you may get confused because it talks of a singularity which is just a math thing meaning the math admits it can't describe the reality past a point, but in any event there was no mass I think as it was all energy that inflated, but as I said you need to know specifically about this if you are going to find holes.

I could look this up for you and give you a link but you can do that if you wish or you can continue to proceed uninformed.

I think it best if you learn to find some information on the big bang before you go any further and really I don't feel inclined to help if you can't at least do some basic reading.
It appears you have only read folk who criticize because you don't seem to know anything.

Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Yes, observational work and calculations, but Galileo did not talk about abstract inflation, singularity dark matter, dark energy-these are all entirely different things-Galileo did not try to create abstract pseudo-explanations, but the real-world explanations based on real-world evidences.
This is why I compared modern science/physics with abstract pseudo-evidences that do not exist in the real world, while Glileo was using real world

Let me be perfectly clear about what you are claiming and you can correct me if I am wrong or even not even wrong.

• You are claiming you are the equivalent of Galileo (raging against the church)
• You are not the church (mainstream science)
• When Galileo presented his real world 'observational work and calculations'
• The church rejected them (real world) for church dogma (which has never produced proof of god)

So present day church (science) rejects you (Galileo) because of science dogma.

Hope I am correct so far.

But didn't legions of others repeat Galileo and find he was right?

Where are the legions of others repeating Eric Lerner?

I am not a lawyer but I am going to suggest a way Eric can become a billionaire.

• First gather up all of his original papers (published and unpublished, which I understand both are automatically covered by copyright)
• Make at least 3 copies of everything
• Have all 3 copies notarized
• 1 goes into tamper proof package
• Lodged in a big deposit safe
• With particular emphasis of lodgement time date person who lodged it etc etc
• 2 goes to patient office where patients grant additional benefits to intellectual rights
• 3 copy keep on your person to take everywhere to make updates on

The above is purely a lay suggestion.

Go to a real lawyer for real advice.

Any scientist out there wanting to get a bit of the action (G).

First read up everything Eric wrote.

Tweek enough to make it yours and avoid plagiarism.

Join the dots above.

Humpty loves helping people by joining dots.
Poe doesn't know what a dot is.

 

[Michael 345]

sciencc does it all the time, and than they talk about how can people believe in ghosts and gods as explanations for phenomenons,

Please give link(s)

 

[Michael 345]

y I don't feel inclined to help if you can't at least do some basic reading.

Alex Alex Alex

Be more forgiving during this festive season.

Look at my post somewhere in this thread for the suggestions I made

Humpty putting in his 10 cent worth

 

[surreptitious57]

At the Big Bang the fundamental forces were all present but became separated from each other after the universe
expanded so gravity was there at the very beginning. But it is not so much the beginning per se rather as far back
as physics can currently go at this point in time. But there is no reason why the universe cannot extend infinitely
into the past. The Big Bang is supposed to have arisen from a singularity. But this is problematic for two reasons
Firstly the definition of a singularity is a point of infinite density compressed into a space of zero volume. This is
physically impossible. Secondly it is forbidden by Quantum Mechanics. Hence why singularity free cosmological
models are more preferable. And why String Theory has survived for so long as a precursor to Quantum Gravity

 

[paddoboy]

That's exactly was the points of all of my posts, how can none see that?
However there is one thing that completely beat Big bang model, read my last answer to Xelasnave.1947:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...the-western-world.158483/page-10#post-3424978

More rhetoric without answering relative questions and/or ignoring other pertinent situations.
Worth noting again, as per your contradiction I highlighted in post 157, there are of course other similar contradictions or simply cunning manourvres in avoiding answering questions that may indicate more contradictions. eg: I asked a question a few pages back to explain or give this forum an indication of how life came to be on Earth, while rejecting any ID, and rejecting abiogenisis.
You have yet to answer that contradiction.

But what really makes your posts worthless is that same old phrase you constantly us, [as if it is going to convince anyone ] like

I explained and I have 100% proven why

I find that amusing and an indication of why you have told so many porky pies , why you obfuscate so much and why you avoid the pertinent questions.
Finally and justifiably your silly revival after a few years of a thread so that you can continue with preaching your nonsense, has seen it moved to pseudoscience.
I suppose now that you have been moved to pseudoscience, you can at least wallow in your silly "proven claims" to your hearts content!
Have fun!

 

[paddoboy]

Hi surreptitious57: I'm not correcting your posts, [I'm only an amateur at this game like most others, Just adding more info as I have hopefully learnt correctly over the years.

At the Big Bang the fundamental forces were all present but became separated from each other after the universe;/QUOTE]
Known as the Superforce.

expanded so gravity was there at the very beginning. But it is not so much the beginning per se rather as far back.
as physics can currently go at this point in time. But there is no reason why the universe cannot extend infinitely

Explained here......
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

into the past. The Big Bang is supposed to have arisen from a singularity. But this is problematic for two reasons
Firstly the definition of a singularity is a point of infinite density compressed into a space of zero volume. This is
physically impossible. Secondly it is forbidden by Quantum Mechanics. Hence why singularity free cosmological
models are more preferable. And why String Theory has survived for so long as a precursor to Quantum Gravity

The singularity in any event, need not be infinite, but may lead to infinite quantities. Our laws of physics and GR, all break down at 10-43 seconds or at the quantum/Planck level, from any point singularity.
Since the Planck level and definitions are just man made concepts, it is certainly possible for a surface of sorts to exist between the point singularity and what is the beginning of the quantum/Planck level.
Most scientists do accept the fact that the point singularity does not exist at least inside BH's.

 

[karenmansker]

[QUOTE="Michael 345, post:

I am not a lawyer but I am going to suggest a way Eric can become a billionaire.

• First gather up all of his original papers (published and unpublished, which I understand both are automatically covered by copyright)
• Make at least 3 copies of everything
• Have all 3 copies notarized
• 1 goes into tamper proof package
• Lodged in a big deposit safe
• With particular emphasis of lodgement time date person who lodged it etc etc
• 2 goes to patient office where patients grant additional benefits to intellectual rights
• 3 copy keep on your person to take everywhere to make updates on

"patient office"? I have been a patient . . . . and I have applied to the US Patent Office . . . . I was successful in both venues . . . I became healed (patient office) . . .and I received a Patent (Patent Office)!!