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

[paddoboy]

deleted

 

[Michael 345]

[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• First gather up all of his original papers (published and unpublished, which I understand both are automatically covered by copyright)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)!!

Ooops sorry.

I offer

• To many years as a registered nurse
• Mild dyslexia
• A spell checker with a wicked sense of humus

Cheers

Humpty Dumpty don't like speller checkerer
Poe sometimes has trouble with his name.

 

[Write4U]

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.

So, theoretical sciences don't exist? So tell me how we came to the conclusion that the Higgs boson should exist, even though no one had observed it. Of course when we tested the theoretical hypothesis at Cern......low, there it was!

The table of elements predicted (theoretically) several "missing* elements. So we nade them nd it turns out that the missing elements are not stable enough and decay quickly.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

It is thought that when/as spacetime started to evolve, all the four forces were united as one, called the Superforce:
The BB arose from a Singularity of spacetime, rather then any singularity in spacetime.
Mass/matter did not come into existence until a short time after spacetime/Superforce started to evolve.
Unlike you though [tic mode certainly on ] science does not yet know everything, and as you so ignorantly and religiously keep pushing and referring to, "proof" or "prove" is not really a part of scientific theory, and only is used by cranks, quacks, god bothering fools and nuts of many varieties.

The second fact is in order to save the Big Bang model

The BB model does not need saving, and certainly does not really need me to refute your closeted religiously inspired, god of the gaps approach, but for the sake of the children, you should be revealed for what you truly are.

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.

Just because you are incapable of understanding a certain concept, does not make wrong: Obviously it's either your own ignorance and understanding skills at fault, or as is the case with so many, just another god bothering, god of the gaps argument, to pay back science for pushing such deities into near oblivion.

Oh, and again, in case you attempt to avoid answering, you have previoously claimed you do not accept ID [a cunning ploy imo] and you also reject abiogenisis.....so please, pretty please, can you explain that rather contradictory stance?

 

[DaveC426913]

A spell checker with a wicked sense of humus

 

[Gravage]

It is thought that when/as spacetime started to evolve, all the four forces were united as one, called the Superforce:
The BB arose from a Singularity of spacetime, rather then any singularity in spacetime.
Mass/matter did not come into existence until a short time after spacetime/Superforce started to evolve.
Unlike you though [tic mode certainly on ] science does not yet know everything, and as you so ignorantly and religiously keep pushing and referring to, "proof" or "prove" is not really a part of scientific theory, and only is used by cranks, quacks, god bothering fools and nuts of many varieties.

Are you stupid or what? Singularity is dimensionless by the Big Bang model-meaing it does not exist, because it does not have dimensions, I cannot believe that you can be so stupid.
And if there was no space time there could not be universe-something that does not exist cannot create something that exists, what's wrong with you people are you so blind or stupid that you don't even recognize these mistakes?

I challenge you to show me one experiment which proves that something can come from nothing-don't talk about quantum fluctuations, because they do not come from nothing in the first place, that's basically mathematical nonsense because it is never detected they are created out of nothing, what they detect in their experiments on these scales are simply energy like signal, and than they say they have detected energy from nothing, if there is energy detected there is no nothing it's smething-and thta's what quantum fluctuations prove.

Basically, you cannot have infinite densitiy in something that does not exist-that is dimensionless, what part you don't understand, sickboy?

You are forgetting that there would not be any singularity if there was no mass/matter first, because dimensionless singularity is the product of mass/matter like described in mathematics-I cannot believe that you trust this nonsese-how exactly this is different than believing in ghosts, demons and gods?
Pure religion in every way on every level, sir.

You are also forgetting the fact that you posted earlier: the Big Bang model describes the state of the universe when it was very younf very small, when space, time, matter, energy and mass already existed in the fist place-not before that.

And I'm talking about this hyper-small universe of microscopic level with hyper-vast temperature and with hyper-vast mass, if you follow Big Bang model, it beats itself, this small universe could not have expand since its entire mass was in that one small, microscopic region, and when the gravity was truly extreme-it could not have expanded in any way possible-so the universe would never expand and the dust, planets, stars and galaxies would never be created and evolved to sizes we see them today.

The BB model does not need saving, and certainly does not really need me to refute your closeted religiously inspired, god of the gaps approach, but for the sake of the children, you should be revealed for what you truly are.

Just because you are incapable of understanding a certain concept, does not make wrong: Obviously it's either your own ignorance and understanding skills at fault, or as is the case with so many, just another god bothering, god of the gaps argument, to pay back science for pushing such deities into near oblivion.

It's not ignorance in this thread you have proven how much you have faith in those abstract models, you are a fanatic, you cannot be reaoned, you are wise enough to not go into a debate with me for which you know they doesn't fit in the Big Bang model, or simply you so blinded with your faith, that you don't think at all, you only think when scientists tell you when and what to think.
I do undestand concepts present in the Big Bang model every single detail, but it is you that you don't understand what holes are present in the Big Bang model, the last hole I posted simply says and proves how exactly the Big Bang model beats itself.
It is you who cinsider science religion and god, not me, I hate religion, it's the worst thing ever that was created by people, and I can see by reading your posts, science is very close to that thing called religion.

Oh, and again, in case you attempt to avoid answering, you have previoously claimed you do not accept ID [a cunning ploy imo] and you also reject abiogenisis.....so please, pretty please, can you explain that rather contradictory stance?

None of these hypotheses are actually provable, basically regarding abiogenesis you just need to go back in time and check for real if any of these what it is claimed today really is true, and that is truly impossible so no mattr what I say or think it totally unimportant because the real truth is buried in the past times when this was actually happening.

One more time:
Big Bang model-you specifically said, it does not talk about the beginning o the universe but from the moment the unvierse so small, this religion simply fails in the fact that you claim the universe was very small, but was very hot and has immense mass-so how exactly it could have expand itself if the mass of the universe was in that small region of microscopic level?
Because of such mass universe could not evolve at any point at any level because of the mass that is too great.

And since the universe is suppose to be isolated system, the tempereature that was extremely high, when the universe was small, could not have dropped to 2.7K, it could only stay at least on the same level and possibly even higher, so the only way for tempereature to drop like this to 2.7 K from trillions upon trillions upon trillions of degrees Celsius (from the time when the universe was microscopically small) is that the universe is closed system or open system.

 

[Gravage]

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

Everybody ignored the fac tthat every time mathematics has encountered infinite values and zeroes, it ended up wrong, this is why singularites and similar concepts should be always avoided.
Everybody forget that singularity that it is dimensionless/zero volume cannot have infinite density-because there is nothing where this infinite density can exist in the first place-are physicsts and mathematicians stupid or what?

 

[Gravage]

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.

Obviously I do understand model, but I see that is full oc cracks and holes, you didn't study it thoroguhly like I did.
No, what I say that the model beats itself, basically it says the Big Bang model explains when the universe very young and was very small on microscopic level, and it had mass, but it had mass of the universe, so how could universe evolve if the mass of the universe cannot allow anything to expand in the first place?
It simply couldn't, that's the key.

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

I posted the answer to paddoboy, so you can read there:
The only thing I see on this forum is what scientists say none has critical thinking and none sees the holes in the Big bang model, so far except fo me, so far.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...the-western-world.158483/page-11#post-3425119

And this answer to surreptitious57:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...the-western-world.158483/page-11#post-3425120

 

[DaveC426913]

And if there was no space time there could not be universe-something that does not exist cannot create something that exists,

This universe contains space-time. This universe did not always exist. There was something from which this universe issued that amy or may not have had spacetime like ours.

I challenge you to show me one experiment which proves that something can come from nothing-

So you'd like to see an experiment that simulates the creation of the universe - an unprecedented event in all creation. We'll get right on that.

Basically you cannot have infinite densitiy in something that does not exist-that is dimensionless

No one except you is talking about things that don't exist.

You are forgetting that there would not be any singularity if there was no mass/matter first, because dimensionless singularity is the product of mass/matter like described in mathematics

False.

sir.

Presumably, sarcastic, since you've called him stupid at least three times as well as blind and sickboy.

None of these hypotheses are actually provable, basically regarding abiogenesis you just need to go back in time and check for real if any of these what it is claimed today really is true, and that is truly impossible so no mattr what I say or think it totally unimportant because the real truth is buried in the past times when this was actually happening.

You might want to read up a little on what the scientific method has to say about "proof" and "truth" before tossing about the word 'stupid'.

Big Bang model-you specifically said, it does not talk about the beginning o the universe but from the moment the unvierse so small, this religion simply fails in the fact that you claim the universe was very small, but was very hot and has immense mass-so how exactly it could have expand itself if the mass of the universe was in that small region of microscopic level?

OK, so it is clear that you know nothing about the Big Bang model.

Because of such mass universe could not evolve at any point at any level because of the mass that is too great.

OK since you don't know anything about the BB model, your best assumption is that the physics of the universe in the first few picoseconds was the same as it is when the universe is 93 billion light years in expanse.

And since the universe is suppose to be isolated system, the tempereature that was extremely high, when the universe was small, could not have dropped to 2.7K, it could only stay at least the same.

OK so you also don't know how thermodynamics works.

 

[DaveC426913]

are physicsts and mathematicians stupid or what?

It would behoove you to first find out what physicists and mathematicians are actually saying.

And they are not saying what surreptitious57 is saying.

You would be wise to find a better source of learning than another member on a forum who also doesn't know what they're talking about.

Everybody forget that singularity that it is dimensionless/zero volume cannot have infinite density-because there is nothing where this infinite density can exist in the first place-

A singularity is not defined as zero-dimensional or infinite density. Nor, while we're at it, is the BigBang presumed to have been started from a point of zero-volume or infinite density.

You have some learning to do, and until then, you're making a bit of a fool of yourself.

 

[DaveC426913]

Obviously I do understand model

You clearly do not, else you would not be asking such naive questions.

Your "thorough" study, as you call it, is on the level of pop-sci articlelets and youtube videos. You make the same bad assumptions such sources do. And you think that's enough for you to understand cosmology.

 

[Gravage]

This universe contains space-time. This universe did not always exist. There was something from which this universe issued that amy or may not have had spacetime like ours.

So you'd like to see an experiment that simulates the creation of the universe - an unprecedented event in all creation. We'll get right on that.

And that will never be possible, because htis model when it comes to creation of the universe is simply wrong as I have shown the reasons and evidences and holes behind it.

No one except you is talking about things that don't exist.

False.

Oh, really prove it, I challenge you to prove it, dark matter, dark energy, inflation it's all mumbo jumbo, string hypothesis it's all mathematical crap.

Presumably, sarcastic, since you've called him stupid at least three times as well as blind and sickboy.

You might want to read up a little on what the scientific method has to say about "proof" and "truth" before tossing about the word 'stupid'.

I'm simply using facts, not mathematical fiction to disporve the model.

OK, so it is clear that you know nothing about the Big Bang model.

Oh, really? It is the other way around, there is nothing in the Big Bang model that is first provable and like I have shown to Paddoboy, the model beats itself.

OK since you don't know anything about the BB model, your best assumption is that the physics of the universe in the first few picoseconds was the same as it is when the universe is 93 billion light years in expanse.

OK so you also don't know how thermodynamics works.

When the universe was small it was the same, I'm not talking about seconds I'm talking abou the universe when it was small and because of the mass it had it could not expand in any way.
Plus there is a problem with temperature of the universe which could only drop if the universe was not isolated system, but closed system or open system.
I'm talking about the fact that infinite densitycannot exist if you have zero volume-singularity.

 

[Gravage]

You clearly do not, else you would not be asking such naive questions.

I do understand the Big Bang model very, very well, but you believe it too much you don't even question it, let alone criticize it, if you ever do this, you would easily see cracks and holes in the Big bang model.

 

[Gravage]

It would behoove you to first find out what physicists and mathematicians are actually saying.

And they are not saying what surreptitious57 is saying.

You would be wise to find a better source of learning than another member on a forum who also doesn't know what they're talking about.

Oh, really but that's exactly what physicsts say, they say nothing exploded and the universe was created-I mean how stupid they think we are?
Nothing cannot explode, because it's nothing, it does not exist, something that does not exist it cannot explode.

A singularity is not defined as zero-dimensional or infinite density. Nor, while we're at it, is the BigBang presumed to have been started from a point of zero-volume or infinite density.

You have some learning to do, and until then, you're making a bit of a fool of yourself.

Oh, really? Every single paper that I have seen so far talks about zero volume singularity-infinitesimally small point, Big Bang could not have started from zero volume because infinite densitiy cannot exist in zero volume in the first place.
What's next....

 

[DaveC426913]

I'll indulge you a littel because it pleases me to.

Here are just some the naive things you think.

...when it was small and because of the mass it had it could not expand in any way

Why not?

Plus there is a problem with temperature of the universe which could only drop if the universe was not isolated system, but closed system or open system.

So you you've never heard of Charles' Law.

In a closed system, temperature varies inversely proportional to volume. So, increase the volumne, temperature drops.

I'm talking about the fact that infinite densitycannot exist if you have zero volume-singularity.

As previously stated, infinite density and zero-volume might make an intersting dalliance for some other thread, but they have nothing to do with Big Bang. Your Youtube videos are lying to you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh, really but that's exactly what physicsts say, they say nothing exploded and the universe was created

They do not.

Oh, really? Every single paper that I have seen so far talks about zero volume singularity-infinitesimally small point, Big Bang could not have started from zero volume because infinite densitiy cannot exist in zero volume in the first place.

Your Youtube videos are lying to you.

The reason this thread is in the Pseudoscience section is because nothing you are asserting is held by the scientific community.

You are tilting at windmills. You are refuting claims of internet fools.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Obviously I do understand model,

Good then you can explain it to me.

Really you don't seem to understand it but prove me wrong.
In a few lines present the theory.
Can you?
Can you take on such a challenge?

It is my view that you have read a few of the various sites and can sortta rehash what they say such that you think you are making sence but seriously you are not getting anywhere.

Look what you need to do is learn more and have another go.

You say you are 100% certain that the model is simply wrong and I am wondering is that a throw away expression or do you feel that strongly that you are right about these holes that you think you have found?
What I ask is this... Would you bet all you have that you are correct?
Would you bet your life, the life of your mother and father, your lover or spouse, your son and daughter that you are 100% correct.

Are you prepared to risk all on being right or wrong?

The only thing I see on this forum is what scientists say none has critical thinking and none sees the holes in the Big bang model, so far except fo me, so far.

Yes and I applaud your stand if not for you the big bang model may never have been challenged.
Forget Lerner write your own book.
Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

Start with small steps.

Even Wiki would be better than whatever nonsense you've been reading.

"the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state" Notice no use of the words infinite or zero.

"After the initial expansion..." Notice no use of the word explosion.

 

[paddoboy]

Are you stupid or what?

take it easy sonny, you are getting stressed out. remember in relation to your ironic question above, its your thread and your claims that have been shifted to pseudoscience!
Although like other quacks, you'll probably cry "conspiracy"
Now let me educate you, or attempt to educate you one more time:
Firstly the BB does not apply at t+10-43 seconds, or the quantum/Planck region: On that basis alone any reputable thinking person can see that a singularity [defined as where our theories and models fail]need not be dimensionless or infinte, although it may lead to infinite quantities.
Most scientists/cosmologists though believe that the point singularity does not exist, other then as defined by where our theories are non applicable at the quantum/Planck level.

I challenge you to show me one experiment which proves that something can come from nothing-don't talk about quantum fluctuations, because they do not come from nothing in the first place,

To talk re something coming from nothing, all scientists can do is speculate:
And the professional experts do sometimes speculate as follows
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
Or are you saying some magical Spaghetti Monster did it out of nothing?

Gravage, you are a total fraud, indulging in post after post of ignorant unscientific claims and then resorting to childish insults..

I do undestand concepts present in the Big Bang model every single detail,

No, you are a total fraud, quite lax with the facts re what others say, and quite cunning and devious in ignoring pertinent facts.

None of these hypotheses are actually provable, basically regarding abiogenesis you just need to go back in time and check for real if any of these what it is claimed today really is true, and that is truly impossible so no mattr what I say or think it totally unimportant because the real truth is buried in the past times when this was actually happening.

You are simply obfuscating and skirting the only known scientific fact my young friend: If you reject the non scientific hypothesis of ID, then there is only one recourse to explain the life that we certainly know exists....that is Abiogenisis. As much a fact as the theory of Evolution:

Would you like to make another attempt to answer the question Gravage?
Here it is in short form......
Do you accept ID as the reason why we are here, or do you accept abiogenisis.
Obviously it appears you are afraid to answer logically and truthfully, as it would reveal the agenda that I have already predicted, based on your many many anti 21st century cosmology/science posts rants and rhetoric....a closeted god botherer.

 

[Michael 345]

....the universe expanded... very high density .....high .....low............temperature.....infinite......zero...initial expansion ...explosion.....

My washing machine doesn't spin this much.

Humpty Dumpty will get dizzy and fall if not careful
Poe will not take his place