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

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Gravage, Dec 20, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Again, there is no sign of space being affected by gravity at all, not shred of it, nothing the only you can actually directly observe are simply cosmic objects that are always affected by gravitational field or whatever else that is created by matter and energy.
    Again math is useless, first you have to create experiments, and than after that you can create math around, but math should stay on the level what is previously truly tested and proved inside experiments.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    What do you think predictive means?

    It is entirely de facto.
    My model predicts that, if I power up a magnet to X volts, I will get a bright spot on a fluorescent screen of Y deflection.

    It doesn't matter whether or not those are "really" negatively-charged electrons; the simple fact is that I can declare with supreme confidence over an arbitrarily large number of voltages, through an arbitrarily large number of tests, where the spot on the screen will occur. And lo! it does.

    Notice there is NOTHING in there about proving anything.

    With my model, I make a prediction. That prediction comes true. Every time. That's science.

    EVERYTHING else you say after that first sentence is misguided.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Yes, but you cannot predict before you conduct experiments, and you conduct experiments before you create models, only after you conduct experiments you create models of what you directly observed in experiments-predictive models are already known because of experience with previous experiments and previous direct observations and previous experiences with every day life and with previous experience wit experiments and what exactly was directly observed and proved in these experiments.
    Plus the greatest mistake in QM is exactly this mentioned above; you create models on what you experience in this macro-level world, not on quantum level, that's why QM is all wrong.

    First of all, what you described is actually experiment, not the model; again misinterpretation of words models and experiments.
    The key problem is that its results always adapt to models that are assumed to be correct and predictive, so the explanations and interpretations of experiments like these simply adapt to what models "predict", not to what experiments actually, exactly show and prove in the first place.

    But the problem and your greatest error (and not just your error, it's the greatest error of all mainstream, religious scientists) here is you cannot possibly know what that spot on that screen is all about and what exactly it shows and what exactly it proves-it's like blind man to find out what is the object he touches that he has never experienced before-without direct observations you cannot do anything at all, just create fiction without any basis to start with.

    And this, what you just described above, 100% proves all of my points here on this thread; don't model something you can never test-because there is no conclusion you can base on anything when you see those spots on the screens, this what computer shows, but you can never know what it is or how does it look like, you only see what computer shows and how computer shows it; the fact is you cannot know what it is in any way, you can only know it's voltage and those spots on screens are simply prints like lightning leaves on the ground, after lightning hits something-the tree for example-the same as for spots on the screen-the only real thing that has actually been proven is what happens when voltages hit the solid/hard surface, they do not prove the existence of electrons in any way, not even the slightest; they are simply directly observable effects of voltages when they hit hard/solid surface-facts-this is exactly the only things that you can actually conclude based on actual evidences, not based on models-again another misinterpretation-facts.

    Just as I explained above, you did not predict the existence of electrons or the existence of anything else-again this is not science, pure science is not to create the model of electrons that do not exist and they are impossible to test with, but to offer the real and correct explanation on what truly experiments show and prove-and you cannot model electrons since the experiments do not prove their existence, since their existences can never be tested, and it cannot be even assumed and concluded logically to exist in the first place-facts.

    You have just shown how you scientists misguide the entire civilization by saying our models predicted that and/or our experiments proved that and similar.
    The biggest scam in entire history-based on lies, misconceptions and misinterpretation that all scientists so strongly believe without a shred of any real/true evidence at all-this is called religion-since they do not accept anything else that beats their hypotheses, models and their misinterpretations on what they experiment with.

    This is why there is no surprise that science is stuck with their models in eternal loop, since there is literally almost nothing they have proved to exist in those models, plus everything what models offer to explain and "prove" to exist is also 100% untestable and 100% unprovable.
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    OK, well, 103.

    This is why Gravage is stuck with his 'no proof' in an eternal loop.

    Oh the irony.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Look, let us know when you've understood what science is. We'll come back then. Until then, no one can help you.
  8. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    None of you understand really, if you misguide and misinterpret informations and evidences that you gain from experiments just to adjust to what models explain and "prove", than we are not talking about science, it's religion; in other words, all the misinterpretations and all misguides of all informations and evidence on what experiments that you have created so far like QM, SR and GR are all based on lies, so you can just say that models are "predictive", and the fact, almost nothing is predicted at all in all those models when you try to "predict" QM, SR and GR.
    How can you say that models are predictive, when they are not, not even the slightest, shame on you all.
    And science should be based on evidences, not on models-which did not predict anything, experiments predicted, the part of models that does not predict at all, is when you try to explain anything/everything with untestable and fictional atoms, electrons and misinterpretations of what exactly you directly observed in experiments, like the examples mentioned above in previous posts (with voltage and spots on the screen, than Exchemist's examples and all other examples previously mentioned in previous posts).
    Science should be based on real-world evidences, not on pseudo-evidences that are "proven" in mathematics and in mathematical models, otherwise it is not science at all, it is just another form/method of religion, only this time in the form of mathematics, statistics and their models and in the form of computer models.
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    For some reason that escapes me lying seems to work for Trump, however it is not working for you, Gravage.

    I guess ranting makes you feel better, but anyone with more than half a brain sees right through your rants.
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member


    Since the only one talking about proof is you, you are the only one not talking about science.

  11. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    I already explained above, there is no science where there is no evidence shown-that's not science, it's religion, and why do attack believers in God, ghosts UFOs and etc, since you are the same, the only difference is your religion is mathematics and its models which are not even based on real-world evidences and facts, but your religion is based on your imagination and imaginative and abstract mathematics, statistics and their models and also the computer models-this has nothing to do with true science, science without evidence is not science, it's religion, because you believe in something you can never test and you can never prove, you ca also never predict anything-so no models do not predict anything, experiments predict everything-that's a key issue, that you don't want to admit that you are truly wrong about.
    I already explained in all previous posts, you can have your hypotheses and and all your models, anyone can, but none has the right to claim that they are predictive and testable and proved by any means, ony any level at all-because that is a pure lie, and since you repeat your lies to yourselves so many times, in the end, all the lies, when you repeat your lies long enough, all those lies become/transform to truth-that's how your pseudo-science works.
    Your last post only additionally 100% proves that you/scientists/physicists are all religious fanatics and nothing more and nothing less and nothing else, since you cannnot show evidences for everything that you claim that is "predictive".
  12. Gravage Registered Senior Member


    What you fail to see is that you are all like Trump, lying to the world to justify fundings just to "prove" that your models are "predictive", although you cannot and you don't actually directly observe in all the experiments that your models predicted anything at all, that's what experiments do, not models.
    Unlike Trump, who is living in w rold of his own, I'm just stating facts that none wants to talk about it, because you all know they are true, but you are hiding begind those facts and the truth, when anyone sees what exactly your models are all about, than it's clear it's not anything scientific at all, since word evidences does not exist in your scientific vocabularies; but the problem is that you love and believe in your models so much, that you cannot see the tree from the forest-the same thing Trump does all the time.
    The same problem is with word nothing-nothing means nothing, non-existence, it does not exist at all, and yet physicists are still trying to figure out something-how stupid with limited brains do you have to be to create hypothesis about something whose meaning we alredy know from vocabularies?
    Nothing=non-existence, deal with it, both physicists and mathematicians, once and for all, and stop creating your own meanings and vocavbularies, because you confuse people with pure lies.
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note..

    32 pages now and Gravage is still trolling... Repeating the same thing over and over again..


    Galaxy redshift.. Look it up.

    Microwave background radiation.. Look it up..

    Don't even get me started on our ability to look back in time and see the elements of distant and previous stars in the early universe..

    To suggest that there is no evidence is, well, rubbish. All evidence points towards the big bang. Hence why it is the primary theory in how our universe came to be.

    If you wish to rant and render your clothes about science being like a religion or what other rubbish you have spent the past 32 pages going on about repetitively, perhaps you should visit a non-scientific forum to do so, where you may be among your peers, instead of looking like someone who has no clue on this site?

    But if you keep this up, I will ban you from participating in this sub-forum. No, it isn't science trying to silence you or whatever else some come up with. It's just that people are fed up with your behaviour and I cannot blame them.
    exchemist, Kristoffer and origin like this.
  14. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    People like yourself are trolling all the time because they do not allow different interpretations on what it is actually observe, not on what it is not observed, you accept mainstream explanations without really checking for yourself, you also do not take into account all those small details that scientists miss because they have to adjust evidences to their models, and those small details in interpretations of evidence make all the difference of the world.

    Again, microwave background radiation is simply radiation from stars' explosions and radiations that stars emit, there is not a shred of evidence that they are leftoevers from from the beginning o the universe-there is no such thing. If you look at this picture/photo of CMBR:

    You can actually see on this CMBR photo that radiation is not uniform in any way, you can only see hotter spots where galaxies and stars are, and those cold areas near those galaxies, but there are also areas where there is not a single shred of anything warm in those 100% cold areas which are all dark blue.
    Som this photo only proves that CMBR is not uniform in any way, plus if there was truly radiation from the beginning of the universe like BBH (Big Bang Hypothesis) claims there would be centre of that radiation-but there is not any centre, not a single shred, so there goes away your argument about Big Bang religion.
    If there was a big bang there is a centre of that expansion in the first place, yes I know you will say there is no centre, but this means you ignore real-world facts and evidences on how something that expands works.

    Galaxy redshift is no reliable evidence of anything, read this:

    Yes, I know that you will say it's trolling, but it's you who think you are all right are trolling all the time and lie to people and manipulate people all the time on entire planet, these are small details that everyone ignores from people that take a deeper look of what is truly going on.
    Just look those photos on this website.

    Yes, and you forget that there are over tens of thousands of galaxies where they should not be-that alone disproves the BBH, if the BBH was truly true, there would barely be any stars at the edge of the universe, and yet there are tens of thousands of them.

    In order to prove an model and hypothesis correct you first need to be able to test actual event, and BBH is impossible to recreate inside experiments, if you cannot recreate anything like BBH, than everything you say about actual, real-world evidences is false and miguiding and manipulating people everywhere on entire planet.
    Again, none should rely on fictional, abstract, mathematical models; but on the ability to recreate and repeat the entire processes inside eexperiments, it is not happening, and it will never happen, plus there are also untestable and unprovable and unrepeatable mathematical concepts like dark matter, dark energy, inflation, quantum mechanics and misinterpretations of GR and SR.
    If you cannot test something than it's not prove, it exists only in stupid models and all the intepretations and all the experiments that are created are created in a way and on the level just to exactly support mathematical models, this is why scientists are not objective at all, not even the slightest, all scientists that try to "prove" their models are right, are actually very subjective and they cannot even see anything objectively what exactly the experiments do not show, and do not prove and they cannot see what experiments did not prove/disprove, they only say their models are correct because they are predictive, but that's not because of models, it's because of experiments were conducted-the experiments are predictive, NOT models, but the problem is because of those stupid models, it is always thought that models are predictive even though the existence of those concepts are all untestable and unprovable-so the onl thing that is truly predictive is what is truly shown and tested and proved to work in experiments and further in every day lives, NOT what models assume and "predict"-facts.

    The same problem is with BBH, you cannot test it, if you cannot test something it is not science, scientists all say that science does not prove anything, but if science does not prove anything, than it is merely a belief without possibility to test anything, and where there are no tests, there is a blinf belief/faith, and where is blind belief/faith, there is a religion-facts.

    Plus, there is also a fact that none wanted to answer 2 questions that completely beat BBH-if the universe expanding and there is nothing outside the universe:
    How can something that exists (universe), exist and expand in/inside non-existence (since there is absolutely nothing outside the universe, no space, no time, no matter and no energy)?
    In other words, how can existence exist and expand inside none-existence?

    Second: How can 3d universe, universe with 3 dimensions exist and expand in/inside nothing that is truly dimensionless?
    So, how can something/anything/everything that has dimensions exist and expand in/inside dimensionlessness????
    These 2 questions completely/absolutely/100% beat BBH hypothesis.

    Yes, I know that BBh says/assumes that BB was not an explosion, but expansion of the universe, bu they also say there is nothing outside the universe, and there was absolutely nothing before the universe, so this is why I asked these 2 questions, which none can answer, since both these 2 questions completely/absolutely/100% beat the most fundamental foundations of BBH-facts.

    End of part 1....
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  15. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Part 2....
    If you want me to stop this, others should also stop this, I'm not going to stop and shut up just because you ordered me to do so, I'm simply saying facts that none of "scientific", religious believers wants to accept and every time someone needs to post something, if I find enough time, I will easily respond it with criticism, skepticism and with facts and with evidences (with real-world evidences and with real-world facts, NOT with some pseudo-facts and NOT with some pseudo-evidences that mathematical and abstract and untestable models offer, although I think I said/posted everything that I needed to say/post just to let your interpretations for a second and look for all the tiny details that are always and forever overlooked in mainstream science, that mainstream, governing, official science always disregards.

    It is always interesting that in every single century, the mainstram dogma of that time is always the same, people like me are always considered crackpots, just because we "crackposts" always show flaws in that minstream science and their holes in their misinterpretations, and the fact that not some tiny facts and tiny evidences are never taken into account, because the mainstream scientific structure always ignores all those tiny facts and all those tiny evidences that undermine their sicentific/religious structure to justify their existences and their teachings and, of course, to justify their fundings.
    The most selling hypothesis is the most accepted one-facts, just look how sellable and valuable is BBH.

    Eric Hoffer said:
    “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
  16. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    I think the mods are overly kind to allow this rant. I salute the mods for their utmost patience!
  17. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Exactly, ban all those who have criticis based on facts and evidences about your scientific religions and their holes, and all those tiny details, evidences and facts that science never wants to take into account, if scientists ever do that, their models would be different, based on reality and evidences, not on abstract, untestable and unprovable concepts-facts, I did not expect anything else and nothing less.
    Just look my last 2 answers to Bells to see what I mean.
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  18. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Management is very tolerant here. Other science forums would have swept you away. You should be thankful, not so angry.
  19. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    To be honest, it's worse when none listens to you, than get banned instantly, because you are both talking and posting to walls, since none even has the intelligence to understand what exactly I'm trying to say, all I'm saying their models are untestable and unprovable, pure fiction, and if science is not about testing and proving anything by using experiments, than there cannot be any predictiveness in all those mathematical, statistical and computer models and all other forms of fictional models, models and their interpretations should be based on evidences and not on other models that explain those models-you explain and model fiction with another fiction without using any evidence at all.
  20. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    To be honest, you have to have something that others want to listen to. Big Bang Theory is the best we can do now. And it will no doubt morph into something else, taking into consideration new findings (new facts) in the years to come. That's how science works.
  21. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    I explained above in my 2 answers to Bells, why BBH is the worst thing that we have just to fill the holes that we have no idea about, just like dark matter, dark energy, inflation and the BB event that are all untestable and unprovable to exist in the first place, that is simply not science, if you can actually not see those holes, than I'm truly soryy, I cannot help you or anyone else, this is what happens when scientis get stuck with fictional models they create mathematical concepts that do not exist in a real world and they are also both untestable and unprovable in every way.
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  22. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    What else is there? The steady-state model? Creationism? What?
  23. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    My point is why create and model something that you cannot comprehend it, test it and prove it in the first place? The goal of science is obviously not to explain the universe, but to create mathematical caluclations and to create new technologies, and so far they are excellent at what scientists are doing, but if you actually want to explain the universe, than it's wrong approach, we simply have to accept our limitations when it comes to explanations and hypotheses of the universe.
    Why not simply accept the limitations that we have in understanding the universe and everything inside the universe and that we will never overcome these limitations even with always new and better technologies?
    It's not a big deal at all.
    The fact is with mathematical calculations you cannot explain, test and prove to exist anything at all.
    That and plus, one more thing, some hypothetical concepts that are 100% impossible like creating something from absolutely nothing and similar absolute impossibilites should be abandoned forever from all hypotheses and from all beliefs, from all philosophies and from all religions and from all science-facts.
    Also, the fact that space does not stretch or contract under gravity because of the fact, as long as something stretches it is not space-that's the mistake in vocabulary, space by itself is not made of anything at all, while everything that is affected by gravity is created from matter and from energy-facts.
    And why gravity affecting time is also misinterpretation:
    Plus, time in nature does not exist at all, there is no sign of it, if time actually existed, the nature would already have some mechanism that time actually exist in the first place, time is am man-made concept, it's not created by the universe/nature in any way on any level in any form.
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page