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

If if if the Big Bang is religion disguised as Science it is doing a bang up job.

I have not heard of any Big Bang church.

Don't know of any Big Bang ministry.

No Big Bang Sunday TV program begging for money to

• spread the word
• save the children
• help refugees
• build water pumps for African villages
• feed the hungry.

Well done.

Poe as Humpty
Humpty as Poe

Spot the difference.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good argument. I knew you could.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My position is that in a timeless pre-condition, the BB would be the first causal physical event. However for any event to take place it must be preceded by potential and the mathematical implication of what is to occur in the next quantum moment. (Bohm)

This is why I visualize a:
a state of Timeless mathematical Potential ---> Mega-Quantum event ---> BB (inflation) ---> Evolution ---> Space <---> Time.

I cannot imagine a non-caused event. That would be a miracle and science tries to avoid assumptions of magical occurrences. The beauty of the Mathematical Function lies in the fact that it exist in the abstract (latent ability)and therefore is not subject to space or time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are the one who is saying that universe started from nothing, to even make such assumptions proves how wrong you truly are-explain that, please, again how can non-existence create existence and how can 3d universe exist and expand into nothing which is dimensionless?
And yoou talk about nonsense?
When people like you start proving Big Bang, it's all about belief in mathematics not in the evidence, if you actually ever believed the evidence you would never create such hypothesis, sir.
If there is one with the ego, it's the big bangers, they just cannot accept the fact they can be wrong, and they use science as a weapon, but it turns out it is the mathematical religion that is the real problem here.
If you don't follow the evidence and if you cannot find the evidence for your hypotheses than big bangers are the ones who are actually crackpots, not rebellions like me.

Virtually all the supporters of the Big Bang theory point to my lack of advanced college degrees in the necessary subjects as "proof" that I cannot possibly know what I am talking about. However, while scientific method is a valuable tool for determining the truth, history has shown that institutionalized and commercialized science is often as dogmatic as religion, with advanced degrees awarded to those students who have proven an unflagging adherence to the assumptions of the past. It was for that very reason that the theory of Epicycles lived to a ripe old age. We see the same phenomenon in action today.

Each new student has to first show adherence to established theory in order to progress to the higher levels of education and funding.
History is ripe with examples of people who achieved great scientific breakthroughs without advanced degrees because they were free to explore the "unacceptable" possibilities. Albert Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity while working as a patent clerk, and only attended graduate school afterwards. Bill Gates quit college to build computers. So did Steve Jobs. Mark Zuckerburg quit Harvard to found Facebook. Thomas Edison had almost no formal education at all. Walt Disney dropped out of High School.

There is not conspiracy since it is based on historical facts, it's all about money, Big Bang hypothesis is doing just that-it earns money more than any other hypothesis.
And this is why it needs to be saved at any cost.
And mathematics is not science, direct evidences and facts are science.
If you have evidences and facts and after that you create hypothesis (in this case Big Bang), but if the hypothesis you create is unprovable-this model should be abandoned forever, it doesn't work, as simple as that, it means it is wrong and you have to go back from the beginning and start a new one, otherwise there cannot be any progress in anything-if you actually want to explain the origins of the universe.
It's interesting how you call conspiracy everything what shows the holes in the Big Bang hypothesis-it means you are the one who creates conspiracies-shame on you.

Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity. The "primordial egg" had to be a super-massive black hole. Therefore no amount of "bang", no matter how big, is going to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe.

In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim the universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all fundamental forces, the entirety of the universe's mass was still well within the event horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not the product of a true singularity is irrelevant, Newton's equation provides an equivalent gravity field for a singularity or a super dense mass in a localized region.

Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have produced the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the theorists claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would have come under the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an escape velocity exceeding that of light, would have collapsed back into itself.

The "Bangers" got around this paradox with the theory that when the universe was created, it had no mass at all. Therefore, so the theory goes, there was no gravity and no reason the the bang matter (or "batter") not to escape the bang into the universe. Then, after the matter was conveniently far away from the singularity, it interacted with a particle named the Higgs Boson. Like the two tubes that come with epoxy, the Higgs Boson blended with the massless "batter" and produced normal matter with mass. How all the matter in the universe knew just when to mix the tubes together is still open to speculation, but usually the proponents of this theory start whispering about God under their breath at this point.

That's not science that's religion, because you are trying to save the Big bang hypothesis.

 

I doubt he would have said that but the fact you say such suggests you may not understand what the big bang covers.
It is about the evolution of the universe not about the moment the universe came into existence or the moments before.
I suggested you avoid critism because you really need to have a better model but you have not even done a decent job of criticising you really have not made any points in your post.
Anyways Paddoboy will explain things better he may provide links in support which you may not read but I and others will. So your post may have done some good.
Good luck with your persuit of knowledge.
Alex

 

Again how exactly the universe is expanding, in what? Don't say to me that there is nothing outside the universe, because something that has dimensions and is expanding cannot exist and expanding nothing that is dimensionless, and something that does not exist cannot create existence-again religion stupid mathematics.
The objects themselves are expanding not the space, because space is not made of anything physical, it is abstract.
You are basically repeating the bangers and don't answer anything, scientists are like politicians these days.

That's the problem with science they use either statistics or mathematics to manipulate everything they can just to save the Big Bang religion, the problem with statistics is that it is full of lies and manipulation techniques and none should trust it-I have enough experience with statistics to know what I'm talking about-you use only facts and evidences that are comfortable and match Big bang hypothesis.
The other problem is that now explains how exactly Arp is wrong, none does this, there are no arguments in beating Arp, there is only statistics, which is not science, but another weapon of manipulation of facts and evidences.

You cannot say to anyone that is crank, because none really knows how exactly the universe works, because we are too small to find out what exactly is true or what is not true, so if you say that I or Arp are crankcs, it means that you are a crank since you don't allow alternativer explanations of evidences which are not based on matehmatical and statistical nonsense and manipulations-so any hypothesis is good if it is alternative to the dominant hypothesis that is full of holes-if Big Bang hypothesis was truly correct there would not be any questions about anything there would not be any irrational, conclusions based on mathematics and statistics which are just different forms religion in which everyone believe, and plus they twist the facts and evidences the way mathematicians and those use statistics want-which is directly influenced in what exactly they believe in.
In above post about Halton Arp "being wrong", none has explained anything about anything, it simply used statistics, that's not explanation, that's the misuse of a true science.

Plasma cosmology/electric universe are not crackpot hypotheses, because they talk about what mainstream cosmologists do not investigate, electric nature/and plasma, how it is put aside-shem on them, no wonder they are stuck in so many things-but since people who work in science and technology built their careers in the Big Bang religion, they won't let this go-and the only evidence they seek is first mathematical, which is idiotic and does not have anything with true science.

 

I know exactly what Big Bang is all about-but if that's true, stop playing with people, stop manipulating them, if Big Bang says that the universe was only hot, dense state, do not tell to the people that it came from nothing, it's wrong to even assume such nonsense, we know there is something from where the universe started from, but we don't know what is it exactly and we will never know-instead of saying this, you manipulate people and tell lies just to get more money from sponsors, shame on you all.
And those who own money dictate what exactly will be said and shown.
Like I said above Big bang model is full of holes, you just patch those holes with mathematics and statistics in order to save the Big Bang hypothesis, but like I explained to paddoboy:

 

​

Againa ll the statistics and playoffs with data, nothing special....
Read this as the answer:
http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 

Anybody out there able to calculate how long the tiny mouse in my phone will live?

He has a hard time on the treadmill when I scroll through the Cowpat text.

Anybody?

A worried Humpty and a nail biting Poe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You really don't understand, do you: It's not about the model it's about the fact that CMBR comes from radiation of zillions of stars that are exploding, that red shift is not something you should rely on so strong, and that the fact that the universe cannot be created from nothing, that the universe cannot expand into nothing, because something that exists and expand cannot exist and expand into non-existence, and that 3d universe cannot exist and expand in nothing that is dimensionless-I mean what kind of model is this-get rid of this stuff and than we can talk about models.
If you don't follow the evidence and if you cannot find the evidence for your hypotheses than big bangers are the ones who are actually crackpots, not rebellions like me.

But the model is wrong the very first time it mentions in mathematical equations that universe started from nothing, or like nothing exploded, such model should have been abandoned long time ago. plus, if hypotheses based on given evidences can never be proven in any way possible, than both models and hypotheses should be abandoned, and this is not the case, the abstract pseudo-science started with Einstein, and today it is so much ran into a pile abstract nonsense, that it does not have anything common with science and scientific approach anymore.

But electric universe model uses only those evidences and hypotheses that science can either both prove or disprove while bIG BANG hypothesis uses abstract pseudo-evidences used by mathematics and statistics that can never be proven in a real world by anything at all-that's not science anymore, that's philosophy and religion.

But how do they know if they are right at all, something that is so much abstract that none can detect-that's BS, and it's not science, the same thing goes for multiverse hypothesis, string/superstring hypothesis and all similar hypotheses.

You still don't get it do you-the fact is that with car engine everything you can actually see what is missing, while calculations createdfor dark matter/energy are totally abstract and made just because mathematics needs them-not because they exist, in the car you can actually see what's missing, WITHOUT USING ABSTRACT MATHEMATICS, while when you investigate the universe, you know nothing about anything, you are just making hypotheses without seeking for the evidences, BEFORE YOU CREATED such hypotheses, because exactly such hypotheses prove that you are wrong, if you BEFORE do not have evidences which you can investigate first, than and only than after you found direct evidences you calculate.

None should trust corporating science or academic science, because everyone have become the purpose to themselves, and like I said above it's not about the model, it's about how much this model is wrong especially about the facts I pointed out above in this post.

 

Answers: Those who possess even a modest familiarity with Halton Arp's arguments should be highly dubious of the analysis presented on this page. The following statement does not fully address the possible causes for the *intrinsic* redshift, whether it's an accurate representation of Arp's claims, or not. And that means that this analysis should be rejected as an incomplete rebuttal for the claim of intrinsic redshift:

"Astronomy has long had a handful of fringe scientists who argue that at least some of the redshifts we see are non-cosmological in origin. In particular, Halton Arp, most famous for a catalog of galaxies with disturbed morphologies (as a result of interactions), argues that quasars aren't really cosmologically distant objects at all, but are rather objects ejected from nearby galaxies, SHOWING THEIR REDSHIFTS AS THE RESULT OF AN EXTREME DOPPLER SHIFT DUE TO THEIR HIGH EJECTION VELOCITIES."

To my knowledge, the intrinsic component to the observed raw redshift is *quantized*. Thus, how does it even make any sense that ejection velocities would be the inferred cause? What causes the quantization? What we are seeing here, by necessity, is a microscopic process playing out in a macroscopic manner.

There is arguably a large set of explanations which could be tapped into to explain this observation of quantized inherent redshifts. Ejection velocity is hardly one of the more convincing inferences.

One idea which has emerged from the EU camp is that, observationally speaking, there appears to exist an increase in the mass of the quasars as the quantized redshift in quasars falls. This is an important aspect of Arp's observations which was noteworthy enough to end up in the documentary, "The Cosmology Quest". It also appears quite clearly on page 108 of Seeing Red, Arp's explanation for his observations, where he states:

"Now comes a key point: If the mass of an electron jumping from an excited atomic orbit to a lower level is smaller, then the energy of the photon of light emitted is smaller. If the photon is weaker it is redshifted ... it suffices here to understand that lower-mass electrons will give higher redshifts and that younger electrons would be expected to have lower mass."

The point here is that the analysis presented on this page does not appear to reflect the full argument which Arp and others are making. So, it appears to me that you are (intentionally or not) confusing people.

One way to explain intrinsic redshift is as quantized changes in energy levels of electrons, protons and neutrons within the atom. Within the EU view, the masses of subatomic particles change in response to electrical stress. In an Electric Universe, that includes magnetic and gravitational stress. Wal Thornhill argues that increasing negative charge on bodies increases their mass and gravity (see "Orbital Energy" in http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s).

So, how could we reconcile this? One way -- and I'm just throwing this out there as an example -- would be to realize that the plasmoid formed in a plasma gun is the most copious beamed source of neutrons known. So, most of the mass ejection will be neutral and decaying, once free of the plasmoid's electromagnetic influence, into protons and electrons (nascent hydrogen).

The second fact is that electrons, being much lower in mass than protons, will remain entangled in the plasmoid in greater numbers and for longer than protons. Also, strong electric fields in the plasmoid will tend to separate the electrons and protons, giving oppositely directed beams.

There are almost surely other inferences which could explain the full set of observations. But, the trick is in getting people to leave their comfortability zone of the gravitational framework sufficient to postulate plasma physics explanations. Whatever the proposed explanation is, it needs to be proposed within a plasma universe framework. This is where most conventional thinkers go wrong: They fail to absorb the plasma universe materials sufficient to even make such propositions.

It always amuses me when people point to a statistical analysis in order to prove that somebody else's theory is wrong. Yes, it is unfortunately common today, but there exists a very large set of misconceptions or dirty tricks which can bias the results to accommodate any pre-existing worldview. The human mind oftentimes looks for shortcuts to avoiding uncertainty. We oftentimes want to believe *something*, and it might as well be that which we've been already taught.

Furthermore, many of the bridges that Arp points to are startlingly apparent to the human eye, once the proper spectra are included. That you decide to focus upon the statistics instead of the stronger bridge evidence, I think speaks to your desire to fight the battle on terms which the general public cannot understand. You are essentially winnowing down the set of people who can argue against you.

An arguably far better way to test Arp's theory would be to look for "quantum graininess" in particle mass increases within particle acceleration experiments. But, I suspect that your intentions do not so much align with curiosity as they do with an attempt to justify your current belief system. So, I don't expect that you would follow up on such a suggestion, or even think anything of it if the hunch was confirmed. This is what happens when physicists are trained in just one theory. It is not so much a product of science, as it is human psychology. Teaching a student one theory suggests memorization. Critical thinking -- which results from a process of comparing and contrasting -- does not truly begin until the student is taught two competing sets of ideas.

 

Again, total and absolute mathematical BS and 100% incorrect again evidence how mathematical BS is so much wrong, if this was true, there would not be any universe to be created and form at all, and there would not be anything to form inside the universe.
I cannot believe in what people and mathematicians can believe to.

 

Of course, it has to be and it is beyond the universe we know.
There is no mathematical explanation-don't ever rely on mathematical equations and solutions, because they will never give you any answers except nonsenses and religious beliefs in solutions that have no basis in reality and which are totally,/absolutely 100% wrong-dimensionless singularity, universe expanding and it is not expanding in anything, are examples.
Plus, every time mathematics uses inifnite values/infinites and zeroes, it has always been wrong in the past (the same as we have now dimensionless singularity BS concept).

 

I am not advocating the big bang.
I am merely trying to explain the concept of scientific models as I understand them.
I am not telling the people anything.

I do not lie.
I do not approach sponsors.
I think you are confused as to my role ...I have none.

Clearly that let's me off the hook I do not have the kind of money that enables me to dictate anything.

We could go through them one by one if you like.
We may get somewhere if we deal with one thing at a time.
You have a lot to say and perhaps too much all in one go.
Dealing with one thing may be best.
Alex

 

Yes, that's ok, I respect this opinion, while I cannot respect opinion that is 100% wrong that the universe was created from nothing-because it is simply, 100% proven wrong.

On another thread you just ask them the following:
How can the universe that exists and expands exist and expand inside the non-existence, since there is nothing outside the universe to expand to, plus the universe has physical dimensions, so how can something that has physical dimensions exist and expand in nothing that is completely dimensionless-both questions 100% prove that universe, if it's truly expanding it is expanding in some void/100% empty space.

Mainstream cosmologists are definitely wrong in assuming that universe came from absolutely nothing, plus there is a light at the end of the tunnel:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/dark-matter-still-mia-after-most-exhaustive-search-yet/

 

Never thought I would see a new element born.

I did see the birth of the Duckaphant.

Now we have Cowpat plasma.

Can I name it Cowplatma please?

Humpty Dumpty suggest a cross with a Infinite symbol overlay for its symbol.
Poe is looking into space to judge if Cowplatma could be found on other worlds.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, I'm posting these holes non-stop and everyone ignores them, if you have answers and proven explanations, just answer them.
Like I said Big Bang idea that it came from nothing is simply beaten, it doesn't work, change the model, that's the first one where it needs to change a model, and if this first and crucial part is wrong, than so it is the rest of the model.
Just like I said, there might be a light at the end of the tunnel, after all:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/dark-matter-still-mia-after-most-exhaustive-search-yet/
So, if they cannot find dark matter, than abandon this model, because dark matter does not exist at all, it's just fan fiction fantasy, it's totally/absolutely wrong scientific evidence/hypothesis-again, another hole in the Big Bang model, which 100% disproves the Big bang model.
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

Wow!!!! 4 or is it 5 lengthy ignorant posts that do nothing but emphasise your lack of knowledge of not only the BB, but science in general, along with the scientific methodology.
Sorry I don't have the time to go through your crusading, meaningless rant, other than to remind you of a few facts...... [1]The BB reigns as the overwhelmingly supported model of universal evolution.
[2] Plasma/Electric hypothesis is long defunct as failing to explain the observational evidence.
[3] Halton Arp died a loser after supporting his invalidated intrinsic redshift nonsense.
[4]The BB is not about the beginning of the Universe;It is about the evolution of the universe from a hotter, denser state, based on observational and experimental evidence.
[5]Any speculation re the beginning of the universe and/or a universe from nothing, is speculation, just like your mythical spaghetti monster, but is based on current knowledge and data, while your spaghetti monster remains a myth.
[6] Your continued ranting, raving and unsupported nonsense is confined to this forum, open to any Tom, Dick, and Harry, and of course Gravage, to occupy a sliver of cyber space and eventually like the Plasma/Electric hypothetical failure, fade into total oblivion.
[6] Finally after so much ranting, raving and unsupported claims, why not put your energy to some useful purpose and write up a paper for official, professional peer review:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[7] Or are you like most cranks, quacks, god botherers, and other assorted nuts, going to again cry conspiracy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Cheap unsupported rhetoric on a science forum counts for a big fat zero in the greater scheme of things, sorry ol friend.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You also again fail at the first hurdle like other nonsensical god botherers in asking for proof.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not sure that is my post.

Does not look like my writing style.

Not my syntax.

Not my view.

If you are sure it is me please select the relevant passage to reply to which will contain my name.

Thanks.