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

Now here you go you make a statement but you do not back it up.
Why do you say that infinite density cannot exist if you have zero volume-singularity.
Are we supposed to agree just because you say something.
All I am trying to point out is this..if you state something provide some reason or fact or observation in support.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well actually, no, I certainly have refuted every bit of nonsense you have posted, and corrected your many errors and nonsensical claims, starting with your ignorance re scientific theories and "proof" same sort of nonsense god botherers push, even the closeted ones like yourself.
I'm not sure I am wise though in debating someone who has had his nonsense shifted to pseudoscience, and have actually been encouraged by a couple of reputable members, and two mod/admins, that I should really not engage such buffoonery as you have exhibited in this thread.
Those remarks were made to me based on the fact that forums such as this are open to all sorts of clowns, and that science/cosmology does not really need me going into bat for it. While I agree with the last sentence, I am also of a firm belief that the clowns and buffoons need to be shown for what they are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Continued...
Say above I simply say "yes you can" where do you go.
I particularly use you statement because it is way off what the model suggests but hopefully you can start to understand the support to a claim.
You are passionate about cosmology and really we all are.
It is tempting to rush in and think you have better answers, I have done so, but if you enjoy your cosmology take more time to learn before you try to criticize.
Some of the things you attack are not what the model really says.
Best wishes.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A singularity can be defined as a *zero state* condition.

 

deleted

 

Gravage, check this out.

http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?

 

Are you stupid or what, you are the one who needs to prove that infinite density can exist with zero volume singularity-because this is not the case with te real world, it has never been and never will be, just show anywhere in the universe where something that has any property and it has zero volume, I'm sorry, but you are either stupid or someone who pretends to be stupid-there is no such thing in reality only in stupid, abstract mathematics.

You cannot prove yourself something something that cannot exist-plain and simple if it has infinite density it has a volume, if there is no volume there is no density where it can exist-I cannot believe that you people can get so much stupidity.

The existence of infinite volume cannot exist simply because of the fact the volume where it could exist does not exist-it's the same as saying that universe does not expand into nothing myth-which is again totally wrong, since the universe with physical dimensions cannot exist in nothing-that has no physical dimensions-it's the same thing as saying that the universe which exists and expands can exist and expand in/inside non-existence-what evidence do you need more?
Are you stupid or simply you don't want to admit that you are wrong.....
It's incredible how much you ignore these facts, evidences, holes and cracks that make the Big Bang model wrong, that the Big Bang model beats itself in its main and most important core.

 

You are exactly using the words of my mouth, and that is what I was writing above, but since the entire universe was small and had so much temperature, also all 4 fundamental forces were in one place together, but also therre was a mass, universe had both mass and gravity-one of the 4 forces, so if the universe had the entire mass of the universe in that one small area, than it could not expand and evolve because of the extreme gravity.
The universe and its mass we see today are equal to the mass of mthe universe that was in small area in the beginning, something that is similar to a balahk hole hypothesis, since black hole has the mass of entire star compressed into very small area, this is basically the same, but it is on the level of entire universe.
What's not to understand here at all.

 

I know exactly what Charles' law is all about, Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an experimental gas law that describes how gases tend to expand when heated. A modern statement of Charles's law is-but what you don't see is that you confuce isolated system with closed system-2 entirely different systems: here is the key difference:
In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings. An isolated system cannot exchange any heat, work, or matter with the surroundings, while an open system can exchange energy and matter.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Diagram_Systems.png

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They are not lying to me, I actually has said before that Big Bang model describes the evolution of the universe when the universe was very small and very hot, it does not say anything about its creation-it is those mathematical idiots that tend to push backwards and create such concepts that are equal to what theists call God, it's basically the same thing, only here they use dimensionless singularity from where everything started, from nothing-only an idiot would believe in such nonsense and idiotism.

 

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.

You are talking about 10-43 seconds; big deal, I'm talking about when the Big Bang started to work, 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, 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.

Sorry, but I cannot open this link, to me it says connection is not secure-I don't know why....

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

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....

The fact is that you are affraid of my answers that beat your arguments in anything you post.

 

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.

 

No, the 4 forces were not "in one place together"; they were unified. They were all the same force.

You presume that gravity - which did not exist as a distinct force at that time - acted upon mass like it did after symmetry-breaking.

 

Full marks for the emotional rant.
Zero marks for addressing my post.
Again I say this if you make a claim back it up.
And if you think name calling helps go ahead it does not support your claim however and your resort to name calling tells us more about you than you know.
Your passion is letting you down incoherent ranting is not argument.

The big bang is winning you are losing.
Alex

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How many times do you need to be told that science as yet does not know how or why the BB banged.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

Reading through your emotional gobblydook, again you appear either obsessed in ignoring answers given to you, or telling porky pies again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let me attempt it again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

....
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.

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.

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.

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ps: Personally myself, I do like Panspermia, but again that does not get away from abiogenisis in the first place.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ahhh, under delusions also as well as pushing conspiracy nonsense...Obviously though they do go hand in hand!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

yeah sure!
Let me then reproduce it for the second time my young scallywag!
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

"Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.
Courtesy of AURA/NOAO/NSF.


In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours".
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As speculative as that above is, it is based on current research and knowledge that you keep ignorantly rejecting.

 

Or are you finding the going tough and need to check with your Overlords?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Tell me why must I prove this.
I have not made this statement.
You however do make statements and when you do you should provide proof.
Alex

 

On a point of correction : the definition of singularity as a point of infinite density compressed into a space of zero
volume [ the one used earlier in this thread ] is categorically wrong. It is actually the point at which existing theory
breaks down. So thank you to both DaveC and pad for highlighting my error here. That definition is now discarded

 

I have been thinking about the op claim that the big bang is the biggest lie in the Western world.
Even if we accept the op is correct in its claim I think the biggest lie title could be awarded to religion (as in presenting an unsupported premise that there is a God who creates, who cares etc).
So Mr Gravage what do you think when we compare the two, do you disagree that religion is the biggest lie ever?
You can see how sneeky those religious folk can be just by looking at their presentation of ID as science and avoiding comment upon who could be the designer.
If you look at the big bang, even if a lie, it at every point offers evidence and observation in support whereas religion lies from page one of the bible, with claims as to how creation took place when clearly no one was there to record such an event and nothing in the way of evidence or observation offered in support of the claim.
This approach is much like your approach to your claims.
You make a statement and everyone is expected, by you, to roll over and accept that you know enough to have an answer that is valid.
You in a similar fashion offer no evidence or support for your position.
But really do you not consider that religion is the biggest lie.
Firstly it has been around much longer.
Secondly more people are taken in by the lie of religion than any other.
Thirdly religion pulls in more cash using it's lie.
Fourthly It has no basis in fact whatsoever.
I could go on but I am interested to know why you don't see religion as the biggest lie as it cons billions of people and yet you think a scientific theory with evidence maths and observation deserved the biggest lie title.
Did you not think religion is the biggest lie ever?
Alex

 

Wow, dismissing the *Inflationary Epoch" as "no big deal" is an astounding statement.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14468/how-long-did-inflation-take-to-happen

A space exponentially expanding in 10-36 sounds to me like the BIGGEST DEAL imaginable.

Inflationary epoch

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In physical cosmology the inflationary epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion. This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 10²⁶ (and possibly a much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 10⁷⁸.
Inflationary epoch - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch [/quote]