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

[Gravage]

Moderator note: this thread is a continuation/commentary on an earlier thread, which can be found here:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-big-bang-theory-religion-disguised-as-science.139203/page-3
----

it isn't always. i think the main reason is that for people who may not be up with the science then a reliable source is the best place to go. for instance in this case, while i know a bit about cosmology, i researched the author and found that he looks rather dubious. which leads me to the conclusion, either right or wrong, that his article is wrong. now, he may be on to something but to someone who actually knows i doubt it. it is better for the "beginner" to go to a reliable source where they know that the information will be as correct as the current science can tell.

Interesting every time someone shows the holes of the Big Bang hypothesis, it is wrong.
The same as Halton Arp found out the quantized red-shift that disproves red-shift as evidence for expansion of the universe.

 

[Gravage]

My theory is also that just before the BB or big boom occurred, space-time did not yet exist. Rather only time existed, but without space. If time existed without space, this will still allow a singularity to undergo change of state, since change does not need space if it remains a point. But it will need time to change and progress as a point. When space connects to time to form space-time, the parameters of the singularity change; Boom

OK, let's see, what exactly you are saying-first of all singularity does not exist-physicists say that singularity is dimensionless so how can they claim it exists and that it is proven to exist. something that exists has physical dimensions, if singularity does not have physical dimensions it does not exist-and there is no way to prove in a physical way.

Energy is composed of wavelength and frequency, therefore energy is dependent on space-time. Energy cannot exist in time without space or space-time. Before the BB, we would have potential in time, but not in yet in space. There is no energy in the universe until space-time appears.

If you say that dimensionless singularity can exist in the first place, why cannot energy, because everything we see is just a physical manifestation of dimensionless energy.
Space and time cannot be created in physical way-they are abstract concepts, something that is physical cannot inflence abstract and dimensionless.

A singularity with only time potential would be analogous to planning a vacation in an easy chair, before you start to move and expend energy to bring it forth into reality. The singularity is brooding like the little chick forming inside the egg (point), ready to burst open the egg; boom! We need to combine space with time before the birth of the universe. The singularity egg pops.

Again singularity does not exist because it is not anything physical at all. In physics we can deal only with physical things, not abstract, this something what mathematicians which are like priests in modern time, always forget, they talk about fairy tales outside the common sense, and they say they have proven everything-bu the fact is they have not proven anything at all, because they talk about mathematical abstract, pseudo-evidences, you cannot prove something physical with something that is abstract and physically unprovable. this is why this website that say Big Bang is religion disguised as science is 100% correct, and it's actually mathematical religion.
There is so much in mathematics that is unprovable these days that is claimed to be proven-basically scientists are lying to the entire world.
And only someone who has time and patience in hyper-analyzing Big Bang religious hypothesis can see this truth.
Time and space are abstract, everything else in the universe is physical, something that is abstract cannot be affected by physical forms of existence.

Personally, I'm not against Big Bang hypothesis, as long as iit is claimed it is proven, plus it has more holes than swiss cheese.
And if it has so many holes, like the link to the website has shown, than obviously the entire hypothesis of Big Bang is 100% wrong.

 

[Boris2]

Hmmm necrothreading isn't really looked upon favourably. This thread is over 3 years old. And just for the record when you use "proven" when talking about theories it is known you haven't a clue about science.

 

[Gravage]

And I have 2 questions about Big Bang hypothesis, since entire universe has physical dimensions, I'm asking you the following, if actually there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang and that there is nothing outside the expanding universe, explain the following:
How can something, in this case the entire universe that has/possesses physical dimensions, can exist and expand in nothing which has not physical dimensions at all because there are no dimensions outside the universe/and of course outside the big bang?

In short, how can the entire universe expand if universe which has physical dimensions is expanding in nothing that has no physical dimensions at all/it is dimensionless (since outside the expanding universe there is not such thing as time, space, matter and energy?

One more question:
Big Bang and universe exist and expand, and there is absolutely nothing outside the universe (no space, no time, no matter, no energy) so the main question for you is: how can something/in this case both big bang and the entire universe exist and expand in nothing/inside nothing that does not exist at all?
Basically the question is how can existence exist inside the non-existence?
And if mathematics is actually saying this, not only it should be abandoned, but also it should be banned forever, since we all know it cannot be something like that, but since Big Bang religion is too much profitable, than it won't go away, not to mention everybody is just buying this like a proven fact, without asking and critically attacking Big Bang religious hypothesis to discover all the holes that this hypothesis actually has and that it is so much wrong on so many levels.

The same as inflation hypothesis, dark matter and dark energy all forever, totally 100% unprovable.

 

[Gravage]

Hmmm necrothreading isn't really looked upon favourably. This thread is over 3 years old. And just for the record when you use "proven" when talking about theories it is known you haven't a clue about science.

Look who is talking, it is scientists who claim that they have proven Big bangf hypothesis, inflation, dark matter, dark energy-it can only be proven mathematically, but not through direct observations.
The problem with mathematics and statistics is the following: with both of these tools, in this case weapons of religion you can actually everything, I used to know professor in university who was excellent in mathematics, but he told me one secret: with matehamtics I can prove that 2+2=5, I can also prove anything I want with equations, even though something like this does not exist in a real world.

Again you are talking aboput mathematical, abstract, equational, pseudo-evidences, which are not real/true evidences at all, these are not real evidences, and you say that they are just because the mathematics says they are evidences?
Yes, sure only in mathematics, but not in the real world, sir.
This is why this website that shows holes of the Big Bang hypothesis in details is 100% correct, the part that is actually good is about redshift, and the part of the universe that came from the Big Bang even though it shouldn't, because in one point there was the mass of the entire universe, if that was really true the universe would never be able to be created and expand, so physicsits made up that there was no mass so they created Higgs boson in order to save Big Bang hypothesis.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And if it has so many holes, like the link to the website has shown, than obviously the entire hypothesis of Big Bang is 100% wrong.

The problem is the big bang theory is the best theory we have at this time and until someone presents a better model you are wasting energy saying it is wrong.

If you or anyone has a better model the big bang theory can be replaced but usually folk criticize at length but offer nothing in its place.

Think of it this way we have a car that runs well but it does not suit you for whatever reason do you throw the car on the scrap heap and walk or do you drive it until the new model arrives.

Science is a little different but that is the only way I can impress upon you the importance of a better model, and how it is required if you don't like the old model.

Let me share this...
I don't like the idea of the inflationary epoch but without a better theory I will have to accept it.

Now whilst that is part of the theory folk will be testing the predictions of that part of the big bang model.

Inflation will either be better established or it will have to move aside for a better theory.

And my personal likes or dislikes has absolutely no importance.

The site you refer to can say what it likes but it needs a better model not just voicing a personal preference.

If the current model is 100% wrong please present the model that is 100% right.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

but not through direct observations.

You could be wrong here.
But why don't you find out for yourself.
Google...observations and big bang and see if there is nothing there as you claim.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

I looked through most of the article and it is mostly bull shit.

Thanks (I think).

Out of curiosity I often read such links

Over time I have developed a Cowpat detector and it was looking like the needle was about to move.

Your post really set it off. Well specifically your post reference to original post and the article in the link.

So I decided your bull shit assessment was good enough to pass reading article

Thanks again.

Humpty Dumpty grateful

 

[Gravage]

The problem is the big bang theory is the best theory we have at this time and until someone presents a better model you are wasting energy saying it is wrong.

You should never make hypotheses about something that don't know anything about-and that is the true, you rely too much on mathematicvs and as I said mathematics is the wrong apporach-since mathematics can prove everything you want to be proven.

If you or anyone has a better model the big bang theory can be replaced but usually folk criticize at length but offer nothing in its place.

Oh, there are much better models based on facts that physicists said they are crackpots, typical religious behaviour, you just don't wanjt to accept it, like I said above the hypothesis that makes most money will be accepted, and right now big bang is the best, because it is attractive and appealing, but if you want the truth, the only truth is that you can never know everything about everything, actually none know nothing about anything at all, that's the problem, for example Electric universe model has some truly good alternatives based on real world evidences and not based on some mathematical pseudoscience and mathematical, abstract pseudo-evidences and yet it is disgarded, please don't tell me it is beaten long time ago, because it is not.
Big Bang hypothesis is the who is crackpot-the one who is is saying that there is nothing outside the universe or nothing exploded and created big bang and the universe obviously i not very sane and healthy in his/her mind.
It is the Electric universe model that shows Big Bang holes, since bangers did not want to do it themselves.
If you accept this, why can't you accept mystical entities that exist only inside human imagination, because that's Big Bang hypothesis really is all about mathematical fairy tale/imagination.
And since you cannot find the hypothesis of everything-have ever considered that's because everything you talk about and calculate and deduct is wrong?
Because you cannot make hypothesis of something in this case of everything if one part of it is wrong, but if one part of it is wrong, than obviously all hypotheses must be wrong-these hypotheses, although completely wrong are good for creating new technologies as well as advancing existing technologies, but that does not prove that hypotheses are correct since this is pure tryings and errors method on how exactly scientists get their technologies, plus you don't take everything into account only part of it (reduction) which is the wrong approach..

Think of it this way we have a car that runs well but it does not suit you for whatever reason do you throw the car on the scrap heap and walk or do you drive it until the new model arrives.

Science is a little different but that is the only way I can impress upon you the importance of a better model, and how it is required if you don't like the old model.

It's useless to have a model, unless you have PREVIOUSLY directly observationally PROVED IT, yes previously, since all the experiments are made the way mathematics says and the methods are used-than you know it will always and forever be proven anything you want to be proven.
Big Bang model is simply unprovable, plus the questions I asked above in reply about universe with dimensions can exist in dimensionlessnesness plus that something that exists/universe can exist in/inside non-existence 100% prove by itself that Big Bang model and all other models based on math are all 100% wrong.

Let me share this...
I don't like the idea of the inflationary epoch but without a better theory I will have to accept it.

Now whilst that is part of the theory folk will be testing the predictions of that part of the big bang model.

Inflation will either be better established or it will have to move aside for a better theory.

And my personal likes or dislikes has absolutely no importance.

The site you refer to can say what it likes but it needs a better model not just voicing a personal preference.

If the current model is 100% wrong please present the model that is 100% right.

Alex

And I still do not understand you, how can you accept something that you cannot prove to exist-that is not science, that is religion, and obviously the entire world is doing like this same mistake.
Sorry, but inflation, black holes, dark matter and dark energy are mathematical constructs and physicists can never prove them, the same as they can never prove the big bang, plus the fact red shift is not something to rely on as proven before.
That's all from me.

 

[Gravage]

I looked through most of the article and it is mostly bull shit.

Thanks (I think).

Out of curiosity I often read such links

Over time I have developed a Cowpat detector and it was looking like the needle was about to move.

Your post really set it off. Well specifically your post reference to original post and the article in the link.

So I decided your bull shit assessment was good enough to pass reading article

Thanks again.

Humpty Dumpty grateful

The link is always BS, when it says all the holes that Big Bang hypothesis have, plus the ones I have mentioned in my post, these facts prove that Big Bang (let's just say, it did happen, hypothetically, although it did not) could not simply come from absolutely nothing, plus both space and time existed before Big bang occurred.
But like the man from that link said it nicely in all examples, CMBR comes from light and explosions of stars and galaxies, not from Big Bang, it just doesn't work that way you think it does.
If you actually read and have critical mind, than you will know that this guy is telling the truth while showing all the examples, while scientists don't want to hear about it, they just say he is crackpot, only because he has shown all the holes in Big bang hypothesis which 100% prove that big bangf hypothesis is 100% wrong (at least the part of creation of the universe on how exactly it was created and expanded).

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And I still do not understand you, how can you accept something that you cannot prove to exist-that is not science, that is religion, and obviously the entire world is doing like this same mistake.

Whether you or I like it or not has nothing to do with science.
Science is based on the best model available.
The best model makes the best predictions and so far the big bang is the one that delivers.
If it is wrong then someone needs to prove that and using their model make better predictions.
If the electric universe is to be a better scientific model it must make a better prediction.
Can it that is the only question.
Personally I don't care I am only trying to tell you how the game works.
And don't get angry with me I am just letting you know why big bang is the prevailing scientific model.
Its not just maths it made predictions which observations confirmed.
Its that simple math or no math...but you need math to manage data and you won't get away from that fact.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

CMBR comes from light and explosions of stars and galaxies, not from Big Bang, it just doesn't work that way you think it does.

Well if you can prove that you may have something what can you offer in evidence to establish this claim.

Also you do not know what I think or my view on how things work.
As I said I am trying to explain how science works.

Alex

 

[Michael 345]

My theory is also that just before the BB or big boom occurred, space-time did not yet exist. Rather only time existed, but without space. If time existed without space, this will still allow a singularity to undergo change of state, since change does not need space if it remains a point. But it will need time to change and progress as a point. When space connects to time to form space-time, the parameters of the singularity change; Boom!

Energy is composed of wavelength and frequency, therefore energy is dependent on space-time. Energy cannot exist in time without space or space-time. Before the BB, we would have potential in time, but not in yet in space. There is no energy in the universe until space-time appears.

A singularity with only time potential would be analogous to planning a vacation in an easy chair, before you start to move and expend energy to bring it forth into reality. The singularity is brooding like the little chick forming inside the egg (point), ready to burst open the egg; boom! We need to combine space with time before the birth of the universe. The singularity egg pops.

Paragraph 1

Please show the evidence your theory emerged from. The first 10 pages would be enough.

Paragraph 2

Please show the evidence what you are asserting is true. First 10 pages and pretty readouts of detected wavelengths/energy.

Paragraph 3

Just out of interest where did you plan on going on holiday? Not the specific place. Country would be enough. Just wanted to know so our holidays don't clash.

In my alter ego, Humpty, can you predict when I will pop?

Humpty Dumpty in waiting

 

[spidergoat]

I can also prove anything I want with equations, even though something like this does not exist in a real world.

One the best theories in physics is wrong because math in general isn't valid? Excuse me if I ignore you forever.

 

[pluto2]

One the best theories in physics is wrong because math in general isn't valid? Excuse me if I ignore you forever.

But he has a good point though.

Mathematics is just a tool humans invented to describe the physical world.

But mathematics in itself doesn't really exist in nature so thinking that mathematics accurately describes nature is naive in my opinion. But I guess there is also a problem with words like "exists", "in nature" and "naïve".

 

[paddoboy]

Interesting every time someone shows the holes of the Big Bang hypothesis, it is wrong.
The same as Halton Arp found out the quantized red-shift that disproves red-shift as evidence for expansion of the universe.

You are still making the same many mistakes re science in general, and cosmology in particular, the last time you were conducting your baseless rants.
Halton Arp actually did no more than what you are doing, and the many research projects and redshift surveys, all confirmed his claims as invalid.
The other mistakes you continue to make is of course demanding that science "prove" what it says, and confusing that with what a scientific theory is.
Science is a discipline in perpetual progress, and is always added to, modified and improved as our knowledge and observations improve.
Or are you just trying to do what other supposed anti BB and standard cosmology people do, and slip in your "god of the gaps"?

The BB is the current accepted picture of the evolution of space and time, matter and energy, and is overwhelmingly supported by most, so much so, that many astronomers/cosmologists believe that even with the eventual onset of a QGT, the BB will still be shown to be a valid description, with new extended parameters.
Inflation is an example of what I said earlier about science being a discipline in progress.

while scientists don't want to hear about it, they just say he is crackpot, only because he has shown all the holes in Big bang hypothesis which 100% prove that big bangf hypothesis is 100% wrong (at least the part of creation of the universe on how exactly it was created and expanded)

And once more, as before, you start crying conspiracies!
Tell me, why do you believe science would protect the BB as you claim?
If any budding scientist had any evidence to falsify the incumbent BB, or any evidence supporting any other model, he would be Nobel material.
And of course likewise, you in your position, [whatever that is] if you had any data showing the BB to be false or any data supporting any other model, instead of just bluster, then you would be writing up a paper for proper professional peer review.

 

[paddoboy]

But he has a good point though.

Mathematics is just a tool humans invented to describe the physical world.

But mathematics in itself doesn't really exist in nature so thinking that mathematics accurately describes nature is naive in my opinion. But I guess there is also a problem with words like "exists", "in nature" and "naïve".

No, he doesn't have any point, other than showing that forums such as this, are open to any Tom, Dick, and Harry, and a wide range of nuts, cranks and quacks, to claim whatever fairy tale suits their agenda.
And of course the many claims re errors in GR and the BB and cosmology in general, that our many nuts, quacks and cranks make on forums such as this, are really impressing no one except to stroke their own little egos, and obviously will only ever occupy a tiny sliver of cyber space, to in time, die in the oblivion that such claims deserve.
Mathematics is simply the language of physics.
And that language helps in revealing and illustrating the research and observational data that show the BB/Inflationary model as the most evidenced and likely.

 

[Write4U]

Mathematics is just a tool humans invented to describe the physical world.

Wrong ! The mathematical functions of the universe are being "discovered". Our symbols are human inventions, but the mathematical functions existed before we discovered them and existed as causal forces and functions, as a universal imperative since the BB, and possibly even before.

Read Max Tegmark..

 

[Gravage]

You are still making the same many mistakes re science in general, and cosmology in particular, the last time you were conducting your baseless rants.
Halton Arp actually did no more than what you are doing, and the many research projects and redshift surveys, all confirmed his claims as invalid.
The other mistakes you continue to make is of course demanding that science "prove" what it says, and confusing that with what a scientific theory is.
Science is a discipline in perpetual progress, and is always added to, modified and improved as our knowledge and observations improve.
Or are you just trying to do what other supposed anti BB and standard cosmology people do, and slip in your "god of the gaps"?

But the problem is his arguments were not beaten at all, the fact is astrophysicists simply ignored Halton Arp:
Mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!

The BB is the current accepted picture of the evolution of space and time, matter and energy, and is overwhelmingly supported by most, so much so, that many astronomers/cosmologists believe that even with the eventual onset of a QGT, the BB will still be shown to be a valid description, with new extended parameters.
Inflation is an example of what I said earlier about science being a discipline in progress.

Big Bang is the biggest lie ever in western world, the idea that everything came from absolutely nothing is 100% beaten by the totally wrong idea that non-existence can create existence-I mean come on, what's wrong with you people, how can you believe to astro-priets like this?
The link to the webist ein the beginning of the thread beat all of the arguments, the arguments and evidences all the scientists simply ignore, Big Bang not only has proven anything but it has faar more questions tzhan answers, plus the fact is someone small as people compared to the universe have no right that know how everything was created-the one thing is 100% sure it was not created from nothing, nothing cannot explode, non-existence cannot create existence, something that has dimensions cannot exist and expand in nothing that has no dimensions at all/dimensionless-you keep ignoring those facts, like everyone else does.

And once more, as before, you start crying conspiracies!
Tell me, why do you believe science would protect the BB as you claim?
If any budding scientist had any evidence to falsify the incumbent BB, or any evidence supporting any other model, he would be Nobel material.
And of course likewise, you in your position, [whatever that is] if you had any data showing the BB to be false or any data supporting any other model, instead of just bluster, then you would be writing up a paper for proper professional peer review.

There is no conpiracy, the only thing that matters the people/scientists that should be rational lost their rationality in creating Big Bang hypothesis, there is no rational research here, and the fact the priest was the first person who proposed the big bang proves that Big Bang is not based on science, but faith, especially matehmatical faith.

 

[Gravage]

One the best theories in physics is wrong because math in general isn't valid? Excuse me if I ignore you forever.

Because it ia not proven, when the math says Big Bang came from nothing, than the math is wrong, how many times we have seen using infinite values and zeroes have been wrong-every single time, that's 1, 2, hypothesis of the Big Bang was never truly proven, CMBR and redshift by themselves cannot ever really prove that anything expands, inflation, dark matter and dark energy, black holes-how can you prove something like these phenomenons with real evidences-the main rpoblem is math, like I said above all of you geniuses can prove everything with math, but you cannot prove it with real evidences-and these are the facts that everyone ignore.
You cannot prove something and yu cannot call it scientifici theory something if it's not proven with real evidences, math does not prove anything, it's simply math, it looks nice, but it doesn't prove anything.
Big Bang hypothesis has too many holes and if some hypothesis has too many holes than it's 100% wrong.
Read the largest holes why VBig Bang hypothesis is wrong in its own beginning:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...sguised-as-science.139203/page-3#post-3424020