Big Bang Theory is WRONG - 33 Top Scientists Object

Gravage said:
I realized my mistake, so scientific dogma would mean if you make scientific hypotheses without any evidences/proofs?
Click to expand...
No. What you describe is simply a hypothesis.

Dogma is a set of beliefs established as "undoubtedly true", such that evidence to the contrary is dismissed.

eg. the geocentral model of the solar system being predominant, despite Galileo's growing evidence that it was wrong.
 
rpenner, eet al,

I have no Post-Grad work, but this has the ring of some sound advice.

rpenner said:
... ... ... ... ... ...
  • Does the person show evidence that he fully understands the topic or are they arguing against some sort of straw-man?
  • Does the person show evidence that they are making a fair evidence-based argument, or are they just promoting their gut feeling over evidence provided by observation of phenomena?
  • Is the viewpoint objective and communicable or does it rely on ephemeral philosophical or semantic distinctions?
  • Does the viewpoint lead to a predictive understanding of phenomena or is it just some outlier data that stands outside the collection of the best and most reliable observations?
... ... ...
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

I don't post very often (not often enough to even be authorized to post a link) simply because I am unsure of a lot of this.

I'm not convinced of the "Big Bang" or the follow-on standard model; but, it works for now. I'm not sure the description of a "Black Hole" (singularity) is correct (seeming to me that the singularity should be at absolute zero, having squeezed all the energy out of whatever falls in); but reserve judgment. And I'm sure as hell not a proponent of the "Dark Energy/Dark Matter" concept; yet acknowledge the apparent gravitational lens effect (no more than we believe in the "ether" (of Michelson–Morley experimental fame, that may be partially correct yet).

There are many ways to express a discord without becoming confrontational; just as there are many ways to explain a counter position without becoming aggravated.

In this forum, we should all try to teach me the basic concepts, as I am the least knowledgable.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
I thought Hawking has shown that the black hole is not a singularity, that it cannot be smaller then a planck length.
 
spidergoat, et al,

Well, I don't know.

spidergoat said:
I thought Hawking has shown that the black hole is not a singularity, that it cannot be smaller then a planck length.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

It depends on the theory, description, and math approach to which you subscribe.

Schwarzschild's math, or Chandrasekhar’s math, or Hawking's math. To be honest, I'm not sure who to believe.

(BTW: My limited understanding is that not all black holes are singularities, but a singularity would be a black hole.)

v/r
R
 
The Big Bang Theory is wrong.

If you think about it, sound requires molecules to make a "bang", and explosions require oxygen to "bang". Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. No sound, molecules, fire, nothing Without sound and fuel to burn, there is no "bang".

However, it's about the easiest term to use when describing the beginning. I also like the term as it allows the past, present and future to be created at the same time.
 
wroberson said:
The Big Bang Theory is wrong.

If you think about it, sound requires molecules to make a "bang", and explosions require oxygen to "bang". Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. No sound, molecules, fire, nothing Without sound and fuel to burn, there is no "bang".

However, it's about the easiest term to use when describing the beginning. I also like the term as it allows the past, present and future to be created at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in space no one can hear you scream. The phrase 'big bang' isn't meant to be taken literally. :m:
 
RoccoR said:
rpenner, eet al,

I have no Post-Grad work, but this has the ring of some sound advice.


(COMMENT)

I don't post very often (not often enough to even be authorized to post a link) simply because I am unsure of a lot of this.

I'm not convinced of the "Big Bang" or the follow-on standard model; but, it works for now. I'm not sure the description of a "Black Hole" (singularity) is correct (seeming to me that the singularity should be at absolute zero, having squeezed all the energy out of whatever falls in); but reserve judgment. And I'm sure as hell not a proponent of the "Dark Energy/Dark Matter" concept; yet acknowledge the apparent gravitational lens effect (no more than we believe in the "ether" (of Michelson–Morley experimental fame, that may be partially correct yet).

There are many ways to express a discord without becoming confrontational; just as there are many ways to explain a counter position without becoming aggravated.

In this forum, we should all try to teach me the basic concepts, as I am the least knowledgable.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...

At least someone agrees with me on this one.
 
wroberson said:
The Big Bang Theory is wrong.

If you think about it, sound requires molecules to make a "bang", and explosions require oxygen to "bang". Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. No sound, molecules, fire, nothing Without sound and fuel to burn, there is no "bang".

However, it's about the easiest term to use when describing the beginning. I also like the term as it allows the past, present and future to be created at the same time.
Click to expand...

You have that point, no energy fuel, no big bang in the first place, however like Epictetus said there is no sound in space, which means none can hear anything at all.
 
There is no sound energy propagating in space today.
Back when the universe was a lot smaller and denser, sound waves were propagating through it, just as sound can propagate through any sufficiently dense medium.
 
There's no Big 'Bang' because there's no sound in space.

This is as stupid a comment as any I've ever read.
 
AlexG said:
There's no Big 'Bang' because there's no sound in space.
This is as stupid a comment as any I've ever read.
Click to expand...

A challenge! I love a challenge! So how about this? There's no Big 'Bang' because it would have been infinitesimally small at the very beginning.So it wasn't BIG at all. Come on now! Isn't that equally stupid? :m::m::m:
 
Last edited:
Pincho Paxton said:
This is how I start my universe. I came up with a particle that had a convex curve of 1, and a concave curve of -1. So the total balance of energy at one point was zero. Then you can just put it everywhere, it will always equal zero until it runs out of space. Then the universe will collapse into the first singularity which is just a Galaxy. But if you could see it in maths, the maths would look like this, and remain zero....

Zero.jpg
Click to expand...

Pincho, I don't know why you are banned, but I find your stuff very interesting.

The idea of the universe existing through a multiplying...fractal, for lack of a word, is so descriptive of ancient concepts.
 
Gerhard Kemmerer said:
Pincho, I don't know why you are banned, but I find your stuff very interesting.
Click to expand...

Not a good sign.

Ban reason for Pincho Paxton: "Continued posting of meaningless nonsense in Science subforums. No observable change in behaviour despite numerous warnings and bans."

I hope you don't plan on emulating him.
 
James R said:
Not a good sign.

Ban reason for Pincho Paxton: "Continued posting of meaningless nonsense in Science subforums. No observable change in behaviour despite numerous warnings and bans."

I hope you don't plan on emulating him.
Click to expand...

He is a puzzle to me, because despite some ramblings, he has said some pretty profound things, and I am wondering if he is aware of it, whether he has at some time been able to grasp certain themes, or if it's just a process of thinking outside the perimeters, as artists do!

I would not mind emulating some of his ideas, but I am not eager to be banned either.
I am quickly learning what will go down and what won't...
 
Big Bang theory:

at conception the sperm meets the egg [ after the inception of a big bang!]
at 24-36 hours cell division occurrs.
at 8 weeks the cells [ embryo ] cycle has been completed and the we begin the embryonic stage
please expect exponential growth for the next 9 months and wallah! a universe is born.. alive , screaming and with all the reflexes necessary to sustain a future of growth and yes eventually death.
From zip [ a twinkle in grandma's eyes ] to zap [dirty naps and the rest is history] in more or less than 9 months.

and you reckon this big bang system happened by chance! bah!

Prove chance is a reality first before you use such words! Begahd! :D
edit: there is no scientific evidence that chance is any thing other than a mere superstition....
so if it isn't by chance then what is it?
 
Within the Simulation/Emulation community the suggestion would be is that certain defined rules, laws or theories, as abstract as they might seem, would more than likely be incorporated into the larger framework. In essence where the universe might not have come from "A Big Bang", the theory is still something that has been found useful and has served as a "base to work from".

(For the more Scifi orientated, I guess that would be like stating "Prepare to be Assimilated".)
 
origin said:
I do not recall anything Pincho ever said that could even be mistaken as being profound.
Click to expand...

Put it this way, you do the engineering and he can do the decorating. Can science and art find common ground?... nature says yes.
Check out Stryder's post. Perhaps not what I am saying, but inviting a bigger, more flexible picture?
 
Stryder said:
Within the Simulation/Emulation community the suggestion would be is that certain defined rules, laws or theories, as abstract as they might seem, would more than likely be incorporated into the larger framework. In essence where the universe might not have come from "A Big Bang", the theory is still something that has been found useful and has served as a "base to work from".

(For the more Scifi orientated, I guess that would be like stating "Prepare to be Assimilated".)
Click to expand...


This is such a valid point.!!!

One that a lot of people fail to realise. A theory may indeed be useful, loaded with utility and function and ultimately benefit yet these returns do not make it a correct theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top