Kay 17: The theory is based on the strength of the proponets now. Check this http://www.science20.com/quantum_gravity/blog/big_bang_was_not_explosion_however_explosion_metaphor_what_big_bang_was-78575

The article doesn't add up. First, the dude was pointing that material involvement in expansion is termed explosion. Since in the big bang, a singularity couldn't have been made up of materials, so it's not an explosion, so we have a metaphor.
I think their is a problem. Kay, did you notice. The dude claimed the expansion was gradual from the space-time manifold, leading to a new space.
That's an awful contradiction. He talked about former and later space. Really?
Is it possible for space-time to even exist when all we have is a singularity?

Reyginus: Lol. Take and rest and look for where to trap me down.

Religion truly ruts the brains. Really, you're still on this??

If it's impossible to reason with you you shouldn't have wasted my time and told me from the word go. There are better ways to procrastinate. I don't want to insult you, and this reduces the enjoyment levels for me significantly.

Trap you? There's nothing to trap...

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR CEMENT/BLOCK HEAD; THE BIG B.ANG SAYS NOTHING ABOUT EXPLOSIONS. NOTHING AT ALL. THIS IS AS CLEAR AS DAY. DON'T MAKE SHI.T UP THEN EXPECT US TO INDULGE YOU, CLEARLY WRONG SH.IT AS WELL. DO WE LOOK LIKE RELIGIOUS THAT WOULD ACCEPT ANY FAIRY TALES?

Nothing, bros, it says didley squat about explosions. It's not the first misnomer, and it won't be the last. Strawberries aren't berries, did you know that? But I would think scientists still call them 'strawberries', no? This I could explain to my 7 year old nephew a lot more easily.

IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE 'B.ANG', or t = 0. Using reasoning though no explosion took place (unless you want to call it an explosion of space, which is still tricky). All it talks about, is the expansion from some point after t = 0. Even too close to t = 0 is a bit muddy.

Kay 17: The theory is based on the strength of the proponets now. Check this http://www.science20.com/quantum_gravity/blog/big_bang_was_not_explosion_however_explosion_metaphor_what_big_bang_was-78575

Lol at Feynman, he looks bonkers. I didn't know he came off as that eccentric, ENTP overload. Awesome man is awesome

wiegraf:

Religion truly ruts the brains. Really, you're still on this??

If it's impossible to reason with you you shouldn't have wasted my time and told me from the word go. There are better ways to procrastinate. I don't want to insult you, and this reduces the enjoyment levels for me significantly.

Trap you? There's nothing to trap...

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR CEMENT/BLOCK HEAD; THE BIG B.ANG SAYS NOTHING ABOUT EXPLOSIONS. NOTHING AT ALL. THIS IS AS CLEAR AS DAY. DON'T MAKE SHI.T UP THEN EXPECT US TO INDULGE YOU, CLEARLY WRONG SH.IT AS WELL. DO WE LOOK LIKE RELIGIOUS THAT WOULD ACCEPT ANY FAIRY TALES?

Nothing, bros, it says didley squat about explosions. It's not the first misnomer, and it won't be the last. Strawberries aren't berries, did you know that? But I would think scientists still call them 'strawberries', no? This I could explain to my 7 year old nephew a lot more easily.

IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE 'B.ANG', or t = 0. Using reasoning though no explosion took place (unless you want to call it an explosion of space, which is still tricky). All it talks about, is the expansion from some point after t = 0. Even too close to t = 0 is a bit muddy.

Lol. Going emotional again.
Just why I prefer kay to either you or logicboy. Oya run, google or put on the demagogue switch.