And to you everything is conspiracy that it beats Big Bang model-you failed to give more arguments and evidences and like a duck you repeat everything, actually if there is conspirator it's you since your ego and religious fanatism do not allow you that you just might be wrong after all.
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.
You are talking about 10-43 seconds; big deal,
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.
I'm talking about when the Big Bang started to work,
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.
you again fail to address that all 4 fundamental forces where one and the same, that the univers ehad huge mass of the entire universe that we see today was the same at this extremely small level,
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.
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.
Planck level does not change that, I'm talking about first that universe could have not formed/evolved when it was small because the mass of the entire universe ina small region would not allow anything to expand in the first place-and you ignore that fact-if we strictly follow the Big Bang model.
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.
Really, everything that beats the Big Bang model you consider unsceintific and fraud-that's not scientific way of thinking-it's religious fanatism in the first place
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.
And I'm not denying evolution-if there was no evolution, there would be no adaptation of species, it proven so much that it needs no debate, what I said about abiogenesis we cannot know for sure, none knows where and when exactly the first life-form was actually created or evolved or it simply came from the comets...., these are all opened questions and you have no right in saying or thinking anything absolute in the first place-if that makes me a fraud and unscientific, than go ahead....
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.
The fact is that you are affraid of my answers that beat your arguments in anything you post.
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 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.
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.
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.
Benjamin Horowitz
