k0be:

PROBLEMS WITH COSMOLOGY

I need a qualified physicist (who supports the status quo) to explain to a layman like me why 'Big Bang theory' and relativity theories are correct and also show any genuine flaws with the new theory.

Here are a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

"Associated Cosmological Problems in Need of Solution
Other difficulties the new approach appears to resolve arose from a revision of the "big bang" which, cosmologists freely admit, still contains unacceptable false predictions. It assumes all the energy, ultimately to become the universe, was created in a massive explosion--all over in a split second.

Actually, no, it doesn't.

Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then [b]predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10120 (a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant".

What error?

"Is string theory right? We just don't know."

However, we may know very soon. The Laarge Haldron Collider (LHC) should, by the next year, be givng data that should collaborate aspects of String theory. Also, the gravitational effects of the other proposed branes may soon be testable.

A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years.

I don't know of any stars that are older than the Universe - I suspect the problem comes from your misunderstanding. By the way, I think the lower limit set for the age of the observed Universe is well over 13 billion years.

Thirdly, in 1998 observations of remote supernovae were claimed by Schwarzschild (3) which show that the expansion of the universe is speeding up instead of slowing down as they had supposed. Puzzled cosmologists are saying that some new mysterious repulsive force must be acting and two invoke "quintessence" having strange anti-gravity effects.

The acceleration of the expansion of the Universe is not a problem for the Big Bang theory.

[b]The major problem, however, interrelated with all these, is that Einstein's relativity theories, which describe large scale mechanics of the cosmos, do not match up with quantum theory. [/b]The latter covers the dynamics of small things like atoms and their "sub-atomic particles". It is indeed this problem which Greene (2) shows string theory is set up to solve."

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/bigbang/messages/842.shtml

Yes quantum theories and the theory of relativity deal with two seperate, unique aspects of physics and cosmology, and, yes it's difficult to reconcile them, but String theory, if shown to be correct experimentally (as opposed to mathematically) can do that. Anyway, can you explain why that's a problem for the Big Bang theory?
-----------------------------------------------------------

So is this what I'm supposed to suck up to? Your big bad assumption-filled, prediction-filled, erroneous cosmological theories. looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

No one wants you to suck up to any science theories - you're expected to, at least, learn and understand them before disingenuously typing silly things about them.

I just haven't had adequate time, I'll find even more problems with your ideal cosmology.

LoL, I don't think anyone has stated cosmology is ideal - it's certainly better than fantasy, though. Also, you aren't really finding any problems with cosmology, you're just copy/pasting the words of others.

[quote author=k0be link=topic=9356.msg1292271#msg1292271 date=1184463150]
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/halton-arp-seeing-red-errors-big-bang.htm[/QUOTE]

To quote Lucretius:

"Halton Arp's view is not accepted by almost no one in cosmology. His assumption (that's right, it isn't based on observational facts, just what was, at the time, another possible explanation as to what quasars were. His assumption was based on his view that the Big Bang is wrong) was that quasars were emissions from the centers of galaxies.

However, we know that quasars are just high-redshifted objects in distant galaxies because when we take their spectrum in X-ray and radio waves, and correct for the redshift, they MATCH closer galaxies. To ask Halton Arp; why would objects emitted from galactic nuclei have the same spectrum as galaxies themselves? It is much more sensible to say that the redshift interpretation IS correct and that they really ARE distant galaxies, than to assume that the Big Bang is wrong and work from there, ignoring observational evidence along the way.

http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/supplemental.html"

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/lerner-big-bang-never-happened.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/mitchell-big-bang-theory-under-fire.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

It would help greatly if you just summed up your argument(s) against the Big Bang theory and Inflation, in one sizable chunk. It would take far too long to start offering a rebuttal to all of that.

why should I sum up my arguments against the big bang theory when credible, prestigious, well known scientists have devoted their time to whip up a compelling reason why you & nferyn's "holier than life" cosmology is in shackles.

It's all left to you now to go through that link and try to find a way to offer a rebuttal to that sizable chunk of defects with the cosmology you've endeared and pampered so much. Face it, all it is - is theories.


and it's no time to relax, I promised you more to come.

"In cosmology, the Big Bang theory is the scientific theory of the early development and shape of the universe. The central idea is that the theory of general relativity can be combined with the observations on the largest scales of galaxies receding from each other to extrapolate the conditions of the universe back or forward in time. A natural consequence of the Big Bang is that in the past the universe had a higher temperature and a higher density. The term "Big Bang" is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began, and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and evolution of the universe."

"The term "Big Bang" was coined in 1949 by Fred Hoyle during a BBC radio program, The Nature of Things; the text was published in 1950. Hoyle did not subscribe to the theory and intended to mock the concept."

The Big Bang and Redshift Theories are not scientific laws or laws of physics. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Big Bang and Redshift Theories fail many challenges, not simply one. The Big Bang Theory will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. The Redshift theory is not proven and also fails. This is why they are called a theories instead of laws. The Big Bang and Redshift Theories are "politically correct" concepts that are perpetuated by brainwashing of the general public, especially school students.

Universities are centers of higher brainwashing


A good example of "politically correctness" and brainwashing is the Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia prides itself in allowing visitors to revise the web page in most cases. However, they do not allow a reference and link to this website because we refute UFOs, Aliens, Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Roswell, Area 51, Crop Circles, Antigravity, Bermuda Triangle, evolution, Big Bang Theory and Red Shift Light Theory. Wikipedia is a good example of the media perpetuating myths.

Brainwashing and Other Mental and Personality Disorders.




Big Bang Flaw No. 1 - The Expanding Universe Theory

The Big Bang Theory violates the basic foundation of science that is Dr. Albert Einstein's "Theory of Special Relativity."

E = M * C2

Dr. Albert Einstein developed this formula that gives the relationship between energy (E), mass (M) and the speed of light (C). The theory has been proven in numerous ways. It is the theory behind the atomic bombs for both fusion and fission reactions. Dr. Einstein conducted experiments to prove his theory. It stands without a challenge.

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe was once a dense, hot body of matter that exploded and has been expanding since the beginning, some 10 to 20 billion years ago. Dr. Einstein's formula shows that the material could not exceed the speed of light as it expanded. Mass becomes infinite as the speed approaches the speed of light. Increasing the energy in the initial "bang" cannot increase the speed beyond the speed of light. The mass will increase proportionately as the initial energy is increased. The mass increases to approach infinity as the energy level approaches infinity. The big flaw in the big bang theory is not solved.

The initial near speed of light for the expanding universe in the Big Bang theory seems large at first glance, but this is not the case. The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second (300,000 kilometers per second). This may seem fast to us, but it is a snail's pace in cosmic terms. A cosmic distance of 186,000 miles is negligible. One second is like an eternity in Big Bang terms.

A speed near the speed of light is inadequate for mass to escape the tremendous gravitational field at time zero in the Big Bang theory. The matter would simply decelerate sharply and collapse back onto itself again. The speed of light is much less than the escape velocity needed for matter during the Big Bang explosion. The Big Bang would simply give a big burp or big beluga and collapse back again. The energy would be changed back into mass. This condition is witnessed daily in observing the sun. Giant explosions called sun spots on the sun blast material hundreds of thousands of miles (km) into space only to decelerate and collapse back into the sun again. Radiation and light escape from the sun but matter cannot.

One cosmologist has suggested that the material forming our universe blasted out from the "Big Bang" at a speed greater than the speed of light. At least this guy can see the speed of light as a barrier to the expanding universe theory. However, having matter move at a greater speed than the speed of light is totally devoid of any theoretical formulas, violates Dr. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, and lacks astronomical observations to prove it. Nothing in the universe has been shown to travel at a speed greater than the speed of light except some forms of radiation. These scientists are going at the problem backwards. The scientific formulas and laws must be developed to support the theory before the theory is accepted. Instead, the scientific community has accepted the Big Bang Theory without any supporting science or supporting observations. Now they are simply throwing out any wild idea imaginable in hopes of saving the Big Bang Theory from collapse.

The Big Bang Theory is based on energy being turned into matter. Scientists are using particle accelerators in an attempt to prove this theory. The success has been very limited. Scientists have been unable to create even one atom of hydrogen. The atomic bomb turns matter into energy, but this process is highly irreversible. The claim that all of the matter in the cosmos was created from energy is a myth.

/bigbang.htm

Here are a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

When I saw wikipedia I didn't bother clicking, call me shallow.
Besides, I found the answer to those questions.  They provided me with more than enough reasons why cosmology is a junk of zilch.


Quote
"Associated Cosmological Problems in Need of Solution
Other difficulties the new approach appears to resolve arose from a revision of the "big bang" which, cosmologists freely admit, still contains unacceptable false predictions. It assumes all the energy, ultimately to become the universe, was created in a massive explosion--all over in a split second.

Actually, no, it doesn't.

Lol sure honorable KAG I'll take your word for it? Your words are as good as gold, LMAO.



Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then [b]predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10120 (a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant".

What error?

There deals with the problem about the "cosmological constant" - can't you read?
You have to do better than these one-liners.



"Is string theory right? We just don't know."

However, we may know very soon. The Laarge Haldron Collider (LHC) should, by the next year, be givng data that should collaborate aspects of String theory. Also, the gravitational effects of the other proposed branes may soon be testable.

We may know, that doesn't refute the statement about us not knowing now does it?
Come next year if it doesn't happen you'll be here giving us some other intanginble reasons why we should wait another year.



A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years.

I don't know of any stars that are older than the Universe - I suspect the problem comes from your misunderstanding. By the way, I think the lower limit set for the age of the observed Universe is well over 13 billion years.

Since you don't know of any, go on google you'll find 'some'.    Lol hahahaaaa it is my misunderstanding, or you mean another cosmological error caught red-handedly. you are too funny.




Thirdly, in 1998 observations of remote supernovae were claimed by Schwarzschild (3) which show that the expansion of the universe is speeding up instead of slowing down as they had supposed. Puzzled cosmologists are saying that some new mysterious repulsive force must be acting and two invoke "quintessence" having strange anti-gravity effects.

The acceleration of the expansion of the Universe is not a problem for the Big Bang theory.

It's just a cosmological problem right?





So is this what I'm supposed to suck up to? Your big bad assumption-filled, prediction-filled, erroneous cosmological theories. looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

No one wants you to suck up to any science theories - you're expected to, at least, learn and understand them before disingenuously typing silly things about them.

I'm afraid I can't do that.  You lads failed to induce the same respect when it comes to christianity.  You quickly turned a blind eye.

LoL, I don't think anyone has stated cosmology is ideal - it's certainly better than fantasy, though. Also, you aren't really finding any problems with cosmology, you're just copy/pasting the words of others.

Mind you I provided the links to them.
What better ways to shatter your discourse than to provide factual evidence from the likes of those you adore, aka Scientists.
If you don't think cosmology is ideal, fact is it isn't, then why are you and nferyn here expecting perfection from every other religion sect.




Next time your friend Nferyn will learn to distinguish from those who dance around the hot potato and those who stick to their words.
You wanted faults and shakiness? you got it. Think I'm done? ha lol, not even.

k0be:

why should I sum up my arguments against the big bang theory when credible, prestigious, well known scientists have devoted their time to whip up a compelling reason why you & nferyn's "holier than life" cosmology is in shackles.

You should sum it up because it's remarkably difficult to try to rebutt so many copy/pastes and links and point out the errors. Also, most of the scientists and laymen (like, for example, your first copy/paste) aren't credible.

It's all left to you now to go through that link and try to find a way to offer a rebuttal to that sizable chunk of defects with the cosmology you've endeared and pampered so much. Face it, all it is - is theories.

If you're not interested in discussion then I'll have to respectully ask you to stop ruining my thread.

k0be:

When I saw wikipedia I didn't bother clicking, call me shallow.
Besides, I found the answer to those questions. They provided me with more than enough reasons why cosmology is a junk of zilch.

It's your prerogative, but the link does tell you (or the author of the piece) why the Big Bang theory is accepted.

Lol sure honorable KAG I'll take your word for it? Your words are as good as gold, LMAO.

Well, considering I do my best to answer questions and posts honestly, you could take my word for it. On the other hand, you could look it up - and no, googling "problems with the Big Bang" isn't the way to understand the theory.

Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then [b]predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10120 (a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant".

There deals with the problem about the "cosmological constant" - can't you read?
You have to do better than these one-liners.

I can obviously read. Again, what's the error?

"Is string theory right? We just don't know."We may know, that doesn't refute the statement about us not knowing now does it?
Come next year if it doesn't happen you'll be here giving us some other intanginble reasons why we should wait another year.

Well, it answeres many questions. I would rather you didn't pretend to know my intentions.

A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years.

Since you don't know of any, go on google you'll find 'some'. Lol hahahaaaa it is my misunderstanding, or you mean another cosmological error caught red-handedly. you are too funny.

No, it's your claim, you support it. What stars are older than the Universe?

I'm afraid I can't do that.

I find that puzzling. It's the height of stupidity to criticise a theory you don't understand even the basics

You lads failed to induce the same respect when it comes to christianity. You quickly turned a blind eye.

I understand many aspects of Christianity and its books.

Mind you I provided the links to them.

No, you provided links and a copy/paste to things you don't understand and from misunderstandings.

What better ways to shatter your discourse than to provide factual evidence from the likes of those you adore, aka Scientists.

You're certainly shattering any attempts at discussion - although not with factual evidence.

If you don't think cosmology is ideal, fact is it isn't, then why are you and nferyn here expecting perfection from every other religion sect.

Where and when did I assert that I expect perfection from religious sects or religion?

Next time your friend Nferyn will learn to distinguish from those who dance around the hot potato and those who stick to their words.
You wanted faults and shakiness? you got it. Think I'm done? ha lol, not even.

That's wonderful.

why should I sum up my arguments against the big bang theory when credible, prestigious, well known scientists have devoted their time to whip up a compelling reason why you & nferyn's "holier than life" cosmology is in shackles.

You should sum it up because it's remarkably difficult to try to rebutt so many copy/pastes and links and point out the errors. Also, most of the scientists and laymen (like, for example, your first copy/paste) aren't credible.

It's extremely difficult to sum up the many problems with the big BAD theory, it's too faulty dear.
All the scientists I've provided aren't credible but your wikipedia is? . you make me roll on the floor.





It's all left to you now to go through that link and try to find a way to offer a rebuttal to that sizable chunk of defects with the cosmology you've endeared and pampered so much. Face it, all it is - is theories.

If you're not interested in discussion then I'll have to respectully ask you to stop ruining my thread.

I am interested, I'm doing exactly what was asked of me aren't I.
You've come to realize your worst nightmare.
I will devote more time to burying your nitwitted glorification of cosmology.






Quote from: k0be on Today at 04:25:42 PM
When I saw wikipedia I didn't bother clicking, call me shallow.
Besides, I found the answer to those questions. They provided me with more than enough reasons why cosmology is a junk of zilch.

It's your prerogative, but the link does tell you (or the author of the piece) why the Big Bang theory is accepted.

Accepted does not mean it is error-free. Accepted and correct are two disparate terms.






Lol sure honorable KAG I'll take your word for it? Your words are as good as gold, LMAO.

Well, considering I do my best to answer questions and posts honestly, you could take my word for it. On the other hand, you could look it up - and no, googling "problems with the Big Bang" isn't the way to understand the theory.

Honesty says ye .
I wasn't required to understand the theory, I asked asked to find problems and concerns as related to the theory which is exactly what I'm doing.





Quote
Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10120 (a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant".
There deals with the problem about the "cosmological constant" - can't you read?
You have to do better than these one-liners.

I can obviously read. Again, what's the error?

You're right, you can read, you just cannot interpret.
Error as related to the [b]"cosmological constant" - in the article I provided much earlier the cosmologists claimed it was zero, which of course isn't possible as disclosed in that same article.




Quote
"Is string theory right? We just don't know."We may know, that doesn't refute the statement about us not knowing now does it?
Come next year if it doesn't happen you'll be here giving us some other intanginble reasons why we should wait another year.

Well, it answeres many questions. I would rather you didn't pretend to know my intentions.

It does not answer many questions. It theorizes as a way to respond to many questions. Big difference.




Quote
A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years.
Since you don't know of any, go on google you'll find 'some'. Lol hahahaaaa it is my misunderstanding, or you mean another cosmological error caught red-handedly. you are too funny.

No, it's your claim, you support it. What stars are older than the Universe?

You asked for it, Now I'll provide you with an in-depth article in my next post that talks about cosmology as related to the age of the universe and stars.




Quote
I'm afraid I can't do that.

I find that puzzling. It's the height of stupidity to criticise a theory you don't understand even the basics

Que sera sera. I ask you, do you understand the basics of christianity.





Quote
You lads failed to induce the same respect when it comes to christianity. You quickly turned a blind eye.

I understand many aspects of Christianity and its books.

or so you claim. I will also claim that I understand many aspects of cosmology and the big bang theory.
The problem is, I couldn't savor it after realizing it was faulty to an unerasable core.






Quote
Mind you I provided the links to them.

No, you provided links and a copy/paste to things you don't understand and from misunderstandings.

No, I provided links to analytical studies with convincing backings. You're just a tad toppled that you can't show they're wrong.




Quote
What better ways to shatter your discourse than to provide factual evidence from the likes of those you adore, aka Scientists.

You're certainly shattering any attempts at discussion - although not with factual evidence.

Thanks, and I will continue. With more factual evidence.



Quote
If you don't think cosmology is ideal, fact is it isn't, then why are you and nferyn here expecting perfection from every other religion sect.

Where and when did I assert that I expect perfection from religious sects or religion?

It just seems you do. If you don't, why expect to remove the speck chaff in another man's religion when you've failed to remove the beam in your cosmology.

About the age of stars that you asked for.



The Big Bang theory of the universe is wrong because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect. See The Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe and A Timeless, Boundless Equilibrium Universe by Grote Reber and Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect by John Kierein.

Reber showed that the Compton effect was the cause of the red shift in order to explain the observations of bright very long wavelength extragalactic radio waves. Kierein used the Compton effect explanation to explain quasars and the red shift on the sun.

Quasars may be much closer than their red shift would indicate if they have an "intrinsic" red shift due to being surrounded by a 'fuzzy' atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This concentration of electrons produces the unusual red shift as the light travels through it and loses energy to these electrons per the Compton effect. If quasars are nearby, they may even exhibit proper motion in the sky as the Earth travels around the sun. Such a proper motion has been seen. See Quasar Absolute Proper Motion for a table that includes such proper motion observations.

Some quasars may be double stars, with one member being an ordinary star and the other exhibiting a large red shift and being labeled as a quasar. The 100,000th Hubble Image is a good candidate for such a pair. Ken Kellerman of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory has also suggested that the red shift of quasars may be intrinsic and not an indication of their distance in a classic 1972 paper Radio Galaxies, Quasars and Cosmology published in the Astronomical Journal.

The red shift on the sun is obviously not Doppler since the sun is not moving away from us. This shift shows a variation in magnitude that correlates with the number of electrons along the line of sight. It is smallest at the solar center and greatest at the limb where we are looking through the thickest part of the sun's atmosphere. John Kierein and Brooks Sharp showed this correlation as a Compton effect interpretation in the journal "Solar Physics" in March of 1968. Compton himself believed this was the cause of the solar red shift (see Compton, A. H., 1923 Phil. Mag. 46, 897). The electrons on the sun are concentrated in altitude by gravity with the greatest density near the sun's surface (the photosphere) to produce the sun's intrinsic red shift. Similarly, the quasar red shift (and other bright, hot young stars' "K effect" intrinsic red shift - see Arp's book.) have an intrinsic Compton effect red shift concentrated at or very near the object's surface.

In addition to this red shift on the sun, which is there all the time and is on the order of 1 part in a million, there has been measured a gamma ray red shift that occurred only during a large solar flare. This solar flare red shift was nearly 1 percent or one part in a hundred! It was measured by the RHESSI satellite. The red shift varied by the element, the heavier element having a bigger red shift. I believe this red shift is also due to the Compton effect and is caused by the gamma rays ionizing the elements and releasing electrons from these element "targets". The heavier elements have greater numbers of electrons to release and conconsequently have multiple Compton collisions and greater red shifts.

For the Compton effect to cause the cosmological red shift, intergalactic space must have a density of free electrons and/or positrons. The further light travels through this transparent medium, the greater the red shift - and Hubble's law follows. The existence of electrons and positrons in intergalactic space has been shown by observations of electron-positron annihilation gamma rays coming from above our galactic plane. This is the direction our galaxy is plowing into the intergalactic medium. (See "Peculiar Velocity of the Sun and its Relation to the Cosmic Microwave Background" by J.M. Stewart & D.W.Sciama, Nature vol. 216,p 748f, Nov. 25, 1967.) This is observed from the, appropriately named, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere.

Indeed, while intergalactic space was once thought to be empty, now we know it is filled with clouds of high velocity gas that contain molecular hydrogen. This molecular hydrogen is thought to come from the condensation of hydrogen atoms that are just free electrons and protons. When light hits these free electrons, it produces the Compton effect red shift.

If the Compton effect causes the red shift, the universe is not expanding, but rather is "static". Max Born (and others - see below) did an analysis of the background temperature of such a universe and found that it doesn't differ greatly from the observed 3 degree kelvin background.

Grote Reber predicted that this interpretation of the red shift would result in a dispersion in the arrival times of extragalactic signals. The recent pinpointing of the extragalactic nature of gamma ray bursts and the delay in arrival times of longer wavelength radiation from these events confirms this prediction as shown in Dark Matter by John Kierein. This time lag for longer wavelengths is shown by Dr. Jay Norris to provide a method of measuring distance to the gamma ray source.

Some say that the Compton effect should cause the light to be scattered and distance sources blurred. Does scattering cause blurring? Not necessarily. Note how the Milky Way stars at the edge of the Barnard 68 dust cloud are not at all blurred even though they are dimmed to extinction as their photons are absorbed and scattered. Also note how, when this object is viewed in the Infrared, the background stars shine right through this cloud without blurring! Dark matter causes light to bend without blurring.

The Big Bang Has Many Problems

There are a great many problems with the Big Bang Theory that have not been solved. Many of these are identified in Bill Mitchell's paper, " Big Bang Theory Under Fire". These problems include the idea that there are many objects observed that are older than the time from the big bang, which is variously estimated to be from 10 to 15 billion years ago, with the best estimates being 10 billion years.

Stars and globular clusters in our galaxy are thought to be older than 15 billion years and there seem to be similar stars that are seen in galaxies that are many billions of light years away from us and thus apparently formed closer to the time of the big bang.

Measurements of the uranium content of stars has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years. The iron content of quasars is much too great for their age.
HAHAHAHAHAa lol.

Even our earth is thought to be 5 billion years old, and is expected to exist for another 5 billion years before the sun expands and swallows it up. The atoms and molecules of the earth are thought to have been generated in previous stars that went through several cycles of supernovae. Even though supernovae are thought to last only fraction of our sun's lifetime, it is highly improbable that there is sufficient time for these cycles to have occurred since a big bang.

Similarly, our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang, which (according to Mitchell) is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape. Many spiral galaxies are seen at a large distance and therefore from a time closer to the big bang which would indicate they would have had time for even fewer rotations. Recent Hubble Photo shows spiral galaxies within 5% of big bang time leaving time for only 2 or 3 rotations at our galaxy's rotation rate. The galaxies in this photo don't seem to be crowded closer together as one would expect if they were really so close to the big bang.

There are some very large chains of galaxies spread throughout the universe. It is believed these large structures, like the "great wall", would require many hundreds of billions of years to form.


Galactic redshift surveys show a regularity in the spacing of galaxies a quarter of the way to the time of the supposed big bang. This is totally different from a big bang expectation which would have them closer together as they get closer to the time of the big bang.

How do galaxies collide if they are flying away from each other?

Mature galaxies are found near the time of a supposed big bang that have not had enough time to develop.

There are also some great problems with the "singularity" of the big bang. What happened before the big bang?? The big bang theorists can't answer this question and just say it's a meaningless question. (They like to say it's like asking "What's north of the North Pole?" - Actually it's not like asking that at all. North is a direction; time is a measure of change. If there was no change before the big bang, then how could it have started?)

If there was a big bang, the temperature of the background radiation would have had to be much higher in the past. Yet there are observed cosmic ray particles, that are protons or nuclei of atoms that are traveling through space at speeds approaching the speed of light. These particles can't plow through the background radiation field at these higher temperatures without interacting with the photons of such a high temperature background and being stopped. But the highest energy cosmic rays are observed at energies beyond this theoretical cutoff energy.

The temperature of intergalactic space was predicted by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener, Nernst, Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born based on a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion. They predicted the 2.7 degree K background temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang. See "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" by A. K. T. Assis and M. C. D. Neves in Aperion Vol.2, Nr. 3, page 79f, July 1995. See also their other paper: "Redshift revisited" (Unfortunately, their second paper misses the greater number of collisions a longer wavelength photon has when the red shift is comprised of multiple Compton interactions.)

There are many other discrepancies in redshift observations that are much better explained by non-Doppler shifts. Hubble, of course, didn't agree that the redshift was Doppler (see his book "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" or Allan Sandage's discussion of Hubble's beliefs). There were several difficulties with this interpretation that he pointed out. Not the least of which is that if it were Doppler, then not only should each photon be stretched out by the Doppler effect, but also the distance between each photon. Because the photon flux is reduced, this causes the object undergoing a Doppler redshift to appear less bright than a corresponding object undergoing a non-doppler redshift. Hubble knew his observations were not in agreement with this brightness correction. He also knew that a simpler, non-curved-space cosmology resulted from a non-Doppler interpretation, and he felt that simpler was better. He didn't know what causes the photons to lose energy as they travel through space, but he felt that it is some "new principle of nature" that I think is the Compton effect.

As big bang theorists attempt to solve the age problem by making the time to the big bang longer, they exacerbate the quasar problem. Quasars become even farther away and intrinsically brighter. Yet their temperature remains that of ordinary stars as exhibited by emission spectra of metallic ions that can only exist at a limited range of temperature. They are known to be about stellar size since they vary in brightness on a scale of a few minutes to seconds. How do they stay so bright at such a low temperature in such a small volume? They can't. They must have an intrinsic non-Doppler redshift and be nearby to be explained.

If neutrinos have mass about 1 ten millionth the mass of the electron, their Compton Effect red shift would be 10 million times that of that of the electron. The probability of a neutrino Compton Effect remains to be determined.

Paul Marmet has presented ideas very similar to the idea that the Compton effect causes the red shift and presents additional evidence against the big bang at his web site.

The stability of a static universe with a Compton Effect cosmological red shift is explained here and another paper can be found here. A paper showing no time dilation in quasar variability can be found here. Time dilation would be required if the quasar red shift were Doppler, so this result indicates an intrinsic non-Doppler quasar red shift such as a Compton effect red shift.

You'll love William Mitchell's new book: "Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality" . Also Lyndon Ashmore's new book: "Big Bang Blasted".

http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/

k0be:

It's extremely difficult to sum up the many problems with the big BAD theory, it's too faulty dear.

I doubt you actually know that. In any case, why don't you pick a couple, sum them up, and we'll take it from there.

All the scientists I've provided aren't credible but your wikipedia is? . you make me roll on the floor.

So far, although I haven't read all your links and copy/paste, the only scientist or credible person has been Arp - I've responded to that. The wiki article is credible because it not only gives external sources that can be checked it was also written by experts on the subject.

I am interested, I'm doing exactly what was asked of me aren't I.

It's nigh on impossible to have a discussion with a plethora of links and copy/pastes. And I doubt anyone asked you to go on a copy/paste binge - even Horus isn't this bad.

You've come to realize your worst nightmare.
I will devote more time to burying your nitwitted glorification of cosmology.

Hmm, there I was thinking my worst nightmare involved the death of a loved one, but thank goodness you're heer to tell me what my worst nightmare is.

By the way, you are burying the purpose of my thread, not cosmology.

Accepted does not mean it is error-free. Accepted and correct are two disparate terms.

No one has claimed accepted means error free. The Big Bang theory is the sum of what the evidence has shown.

Honesty says ye .

Yes.

I wasn't required to understand the theory, I asked asked to find problems and concerns as related to the theory which is exactly what I'm doing.

I believe this was Nferyn's request: "Can you then begin to explain why the theories of modern cosmology are shaky and why you have a more parsimonious explanation?"

That would, at least to me, be an indication that some understanding is paramount. I wonder if you're going to go down the route of indiscriminately copy/pasting when it comes to both evolution and abiogenesis, too.

[Quote]

Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10120 (a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant".

There deals with the problem about the "cosmological constant" - can't you read?
You have to do better than these one-liners.

You're right, you can read, you just cannot interpret.
Error as related to the [b]"cosmological constant" - in the article I provided much earlier the cosmologists claimed it was zero, which of course isn't possible as disclosed in that same article.[/quote]

I asked because it would seem there's been a misunderstanding on both your part and the author of the copy/paste. The cosmological constant was introduced as zero by Einstein to support a static Universe. The Universe isn't static (one of the first aspects that began the formulation of the Big Bang theory). The cosmological constant as it is now is a different constant and, although the terms are the same, represents a different concept.

it does not answer many questions. It theorizes as a way to respond to many questions. Big difference.

Actually, it answers many questions - from positing a reason of black holes to giving tangibility to gravity. Theories are based on findings.



[Quote]
A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years.

Since you don't know of any, go on google you'll find 'some'. Lol hahahaaaa it is my misunderstanding, or you mean another cosmological error caught red-handedly.

you are too funny.You asked for it, Now I'll provide you with an in-depth article in my next post that talks about cosmology as related to the age of the universe and stars. [/quote]

Rather than giving me another copy/paste why don't you just tell me which stars are older than the Universe.

Quote
I'm afraid I can't do that.Que sera sera. I ask you, do you understand the basics of christianity.

I do.

Quote
You lads failed to induce the same respect when it comes to christianity. You quickly turned a blind eye.or so

you claim. I will also claim that I understand many aspects of cosmology and the big bang theory.

Excellent, then you shouldn't have any problems in setting out, in your own words, a couple of the things that you feel have or should falsify the Big Bang theory and inflation.

The problem is, I couldn't savor it after realizing it was faulty to an unerasable core.

You didn't realise anything of the sort.

Quote
Mind you I provided the links to them.No, I provided links to analytical studies with convincing backings. You're just a tad toppled that you can't show they're wrong.

In space of a few posts you've either copy/pasted or given links to about 6 or so long writings - do the maths.

Thanks, and I will continue. With more factual evidence.

Again, I'd rather you didn't troll in my thread. If copy/pasting is what you're interested in, start a new thread.



[Quote]
If you don't think cosmology is ideal, fact is it isn't, then why are you and nferyn here expecting perfection from every other religion sect.

It just seems you do. If you don't, why expect to remove the speck chaff in another man's religion when you've failed to remove the beam in your cosmology.
[/quote]

How does it seem I expect perfection from any sect? Where have I stated that?

All the forums are dead and I'm bored, so why not. Only the copy/pastes, though.

k0be:

"In cosmology, the Big Bang theory is the scientific theory of the early development and shape of the universe. The central idea is that the theory of general relativity can be combined with the observations on the largest scales of galaxies receding from each other to extrapolate the conditions of the universe back or forward in time. A natural consequence of the Big Bang is that in the past the universe had a higher temperature and a higher density. The term "Big Bang" is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began, and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and evolution of the universe."

"The term "Big Bang" was coined in 1949 by Fred Hoyle during a BBC radio program, The Nature of Things; the text was published in 1950. Hoyle did not subscribe to the theory and intended to mock the concept."

Not bad so far.

The Big Bang and Redshift Theories are not scientific laws or laws of physics. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong.

That's not right. Yes, the Big Bang theoryand theories dealing with Redshift are theories (science theories - which means they are based on evidence and open to falsification); however that doesn't mean they have to be laws to be right. Besides, Law is an archaic term that more or less contained within the explanations of theories.

Moreover, several Laws aren't 100% "correct" and have failed to meet several challenges. That doesn't mean the Laws are [completely] wrong, just that they may not apply to or work in certain occasions. For instance, Newton's Laws, which was superceded by Einstein's theory of relativity. Another example is the second law of thermodynamics. The law breaks down on a micro scale.

This web page will prove that the Big Bang and Redshift Theories fail many challenges, not simply one. The Big Bang Theory will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. The Redshift theory is not proven and also fails. This is why they are called a theories instead of laws. The Big Bang and Redshift Theories are "politically correct" concepts that are perpetuated by brainwashing of the general public, especially school students.

No, that is not why they are called theories. They aren't politically correct either (whatever that means) - it took a great deal of evidence foe the Big Bang theory to get accepted. If it's falsified, then a new theory incorporating the evidence will be adopted.

Universities are centers of higher brainwashing

No, they aren't.

A good example of "politically correctness" and brainwashing is the Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia prides itself in allowing visitors to revise the web page in most cases. However, they do not allow a reference and link to this website because we refute UFOs, Aliens, Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Roswell, Area 51, Crop Circles, Antigravity, Bermuda Triangle, evolution, Big Bang Theory and Red Shift Light Theory. Wikipedia is a good example of the media perpetuating myths.

Brainwashing and Other Mental and Personality Disorders.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because yours is an obsure, quack and hare-brained site.

Big Bang Flaw No. 1 - The Expanding Universe Theory

The Big Bang Theory violates the basic foundation of science that is Dr. Albert Einstein's "Theory of Special Relativity."

E = M * C2

Dr. Albert Einstein developed this formula that gives the relationship between energy (E), mass (M) and the speed of light (C). The theory has been proven in numerous ways. It is the theory behind the atomic bombs for both fusion and fission reactions. Dr. Einstein conducted experiments to prove his theory. It stands without a challenge.

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe was once a dense, hot body of matter that exploded

That's not right. Matter came after space and time began. Basically, matter didn't explode and wasn't present until after the expansion of the Universe.

The Big Bang Theory is based on energy being turned into matter. Scientists are using particle accelerators in an attempt to prove this theory. The success has been very limited. Scientists have been unable to create even one atom of hydrogen. The atomic bomb turns matter into energy, but this process is highly irreversible. The claim that all of the matter in the cosmos was created from energy is a myth.

/bigbang.htm

Actually, no. First, the successes of particle accelerators hasn't been limited per se. Particles - sub-atomic particles - have been created from energy. OF course no hydrogen atom has been created, it would require great amounts of energy, heat, and resources to create an atom.

k0be:

About the age of stars that you asked for.

Oh great, another copy/paste.

The Big Bang theory of the universe is wrong because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect. See The Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe and A Timeless, Boundless Equilibrium Universe by Grote Reber and Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect by John Kierein.

What do you mean? How can it be due to the Compton effect? Why should we ignore the more parsimonious Dopler effect?

Measurements of the uranium content of stars has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years. The iron content of quasars is much too great for their age.
HAHAHAHAHAa lol.

http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
[quote][/quote]

I'm guessing this is the important bit. If so, you'd pleased to know that the lower limit of the proposed age of the Universe based on observations and calculations, is well over 13 billion years.

Rather than argue with you over the things "you" said, I'll provide even more faults with cosmology.

While you're over there throwing your words, know that these are scientists that spent a great deal of their time racking up evidence to combat cosmology.
If you followed most of the links you would find more extensive lists of the sources they used.

Big Bang Flaw No. 2 - The Red Light Shift Theory

The "Red Light Shift Theory" is in big trouble. Perhaps this should be listed as Big Bang Flaw No. 1 because it gave birth to the Big Bang Theory. The red light shift theory is the very foundation for the Big Bang Theory. The theory was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 and became known as the Hubble Redshift Theory. The concept of a universe expanding from a single source at a real point of time in the past was developed because Dr. Hubble discovered the red light shift. Dr. Hubble found that very distant galaxy clusters were emitting light with a red shift. The thought was that a distant body was moving away from us because the light emitted had a shift to a longer wave length caused by the velocity. This is called the Doppler effect in sound waves. White light emitted from an object that is moving away at a high speed appears in the red spectrum. The light appears in the violet or blue spectrum when the object is moving toward the viewer. The concept is simple, perhaps too simple. The Redshift Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.


,way.com/bigbang.html
The idea that the speed of light is a constant is nebulous at best (a little humor there). In our small little world the speed of light appears to be constant only because we cannot measure the change over a large distance. This problem is analogous to saying the speed of a bullet fired from a gun is constant. It appears to be constant if you measure the bullet velocity one meter from the end of the barrel and measure it again two meters from the barrel. However, the truth is revealed if you measure the velocity 1000 meters from the barrel. The air and gravity slow the bullet as predicted by the laws of science.

What about light? Light has mass and the bullet has mass. The fact that light has mass was proven and measured many years ago. Light is affected by gravity that is produced by other masses. Light bends as it travels past distant planets, stars and galaxies. Certainly the numerous masses in the universe can slow or accelerate the light by gravitational attraction. White light emitted by a stationary object will appear as redshift light if the velocity is slowed for any reason. So what made Dr. Hubble think that the light speed was not affected by gravitational fields in the universe? I suppose he didn't stop to consider all of the alternatives.

Light traveling through the universe is slowed or accelerated by the gravitational fields of stars and galaxies. Light conforms to the proven formula F = MA as discussed below. Cosmologists calculate that 90 percent of the mass in the universe cannot be seen. The visible stars and galaxies only comprise 10 percent of the mass of the universe. The black mass is there and has an effect on light passing nearby.

All stationary galaxies would appear to be traveling away from Earth in every direction if the light from those galaxies was slowed as it traveled through space. The light from a more distant stationary galaxy would be slowed more because of the greater distance from Earth. This is exactly what the red shift measurements show. A reduction in the speed of light as it travels through the cosmos is the scientific expectation that destroys the Big Bang Theory.

We also have the problem with antimatter. Scientists claim there is such a thing. How does it affect light? Where is the antimatter? The vacuum of interstellar space may not be a vacuum. It may contain plasma clouds of particles smaller than an electron that slow the speed of light. The science against the Redshift Theory is immense and the Big Bang Theory is in serious jeopardy.

Today, November 8, 2005, I propose a new theory that the speed of light slows as it travels through the cosmos. Science to this point has incorrectly assumed that the speed of light is constant. The amount of slowing of the speed of light will be called the "Rieske Spacetime Warp Factor Law." I will also propose here a scientific study that will prove by simple observation of the cosmos that the speed of light does indeed decrease as it travels through spacetime and the factor can be easily calculated.

Einstein proposed in his General Theory of Relativity that time and space are warped by mass. The greater the mass the greater the warp. He proposed that by traveling fast in space and returning to the point of origin one will experience a smaller amount of elapsed time than that of a person who remained at the point of origin. The space traveler is a little younger than he would have been had he not traveled at a high velocity in space. This phenomenon is known as time dilation, and is an irreversible time resistance that has been proven by scientific experiment. However, Einstein failed to propose that the spacetime warp also causes a decrease in the velocity of matter traveling through space. Einstein taught that the speed of light was a finite, constant value. I propose that the velocity of the mass is subjected to a resistance by the warp of space and time. The reduction in the velocity of mass in spacetime also increases entropy and is irreversible. This resistance can be thought of as similar to a ball rolling on a surface. The warp or deflection of the surface and ball will cause a resistance that is proportional to the amount of warp. Engineers use this factor daily as the rolling friction resistance that increases entropy and is irreversible. Likewise, a mass traveling in space is not resistance free. The mass is constantly pushing against the spacetime warp.

The "Rieske Spacetime Warp Factor Law" absolutely destroys the Redshift and Big Bang Theories.


Light does have a very small mass that does cause a very small spacetime warp. However, the spacetime warp caused by light is not zero. Light has a very high speed and travels over vast distances in the cosmos that we measure in millions of light-years. The velocity of light emitted from a distant object in the cosmos slowly decreases due to the "Rieske Spacetime Warp Factor Law." The speed of light emitted from the most distant galaxies decreases the most because the "Rieske Spacetime Warp Factor Law" effects the light over the vast distance, not solely because the galaxy has a higher expanding velocity as Dr. Hubble taught. This change in the speed of light appears as a red shift in the visual spectrum even though the distant galaxy may have no differential velocity. Therefore, the more distance galaxies are expected to have the greatest red shift in the velocity of the light because the farther light travels the slower is the velocity. This does not suggest the Earth is at the center of the cosmos as does the Redshift Theory. The red shift occurs for galaxies that are also static in space. The cosmos does not have a center because it does not have an outer limit. The cosmos is infinite. Our vision is limited, not the cosmos. Future telescopes stronger than the Hubble Space Telescope will find galaxies in space extending to the reaches of present observation and beyond. Space is infinite. The cosmos is infinite. Dr. Hubble observed the "Rieske Spacetime Warp Factor Law" in action, but he gave the wrong reason to explain the phenomena. Dr. Hubble incorrectly assumed the galaxy velocity accounted for all of the red shift. He failed to recognize that a drop in the speed of light due to spacetime warp resistance was also occurring and accounted for the majority of the redshift.

The resistance or friction on a mass moving in spacetime also has an effect on time. The "Rieske Spacetime Warp Factor Law" causes time as experienced by the mass to slow relative to other mass that is not moving in spacetime. This phenomena has already been proven by sending an accurate clock into space and back. The velocity of the clock in spacetime resulted in less elapsed time than the clock remaining on earth. The velocity in spacetime is proportional to the rate of reduction in time. This time reduction is not a reversible process, and resistance or friction of spacetime results in a reduction in velocity as well as time. Travel in the vacuum of space is not a frictionless motion. Thus the cosmos is slowing, not accelerating as stated by Dr. Hubble.

The "Rieske Spacetime Warp Factor Law" can be calculated on modern super computers by estimating the distance of galaxies based on their size (as done with a hunter's rifle telescope to judge the distance of a deer), assuming no expansion velocity and measuring the red shift of light. The average over many calculations will give a reasonable accuracy. The theoretical calculation using advanced mathematics will yield the same result some day in the future to confirm the factor. The "Rieske Spacetime Warp Factor Law" absolutely destroys the Hubble Redshift and the Big Bang Theories.

I, Kent R. Rieske, believe a Nobel prize should be awarded to me for the discovery of The "Rieske Spacetime Warp Factor Law". It seem appropriate since this is perhaps the greatest discovery in all of science.



Big Bang Flaw No. 3 - The Original Ignition Dilemma

A scientific theory for the original energy source for the "Big Bang" is totally lacking. What event pulled the trigger to start the Big Bang? Did the universe reach a critical energy or critical mass level that started the event? The Big Bang Theory is far out. The ignition that supposedly started the Big Bang is devoid of science. There aren't any serious attempts to explain it because no explanation is possible. The original ignition did not happen because it was impossible. Somebody has been watching too many fireworks on the 4th of July. Click the image to see an enlargement.

The universe has galaxies and clusters of galaxies everywhere. Some are close and some are far away. They are on every side of us. They seem to be distributed throughout the universe but in an uneven manner. Now, this isn't logical for a common point birth. There are actually grown men with advanced degrees that believe the entire cosmos was once concentrated in a pinpoint. This is pure nonsense.

The fireworks picture shown here appears to have matter distributed throughout and in a fairly even manner. The picture is deceiving us because the camera film recorded the burning particles from the beginning of ignition to the end. The particles appear as streaks or curved lines rather than particles. The curved lines are caused by the gravity of the Earth. In reality the particles in the fireworks at any instant are all very close to the same distance from the center. They form a shell or the perimeter of a sphere. All of the particles move out from the center at the same time and same distance. The universe is not like that. Somebody should have called it the "Big Squirt Theory" instead. Some galaxies are proposed to be very far from the original center and some still very close. This is simply not possible. The original mass or energy would have to keep squirting out galaxies in a continuous fashion over billions of years to produce the uneven distribution we see in the universe. The Big Bang Theory is a fairytale, folks.



Big Bang Flaw No. 4 - The Acceleration of the Universe Conflict

The calculated acceleration of distance galaxies and galaxy clusters is a serious dilemma for the Big Bang Theory. What is the means of the propulsion? How could a galaxy accelerate through the universe? There are no theories because the concept is silly, but it is a conclusion that one must reach if the Redshift Theory is true. Obviously the Redshift Theory is wrong. A galaxy, such as M100 shown here, has no possible method to increase the speed of travel through the cosmos.

The surrounding mass from other galaxies, galaxy clusters, black matter, light and unknown particles would have the effect of slowing the expansion. Masses produce a gravitational field that pulls the masses together. They do not push away from each other. Scientists in the past expected to see the universe expanding at a slower rate, stopped or contracting at an accelerating rate. Expansion at an accelerating rate is impossible. The Redshift Theory is simply wrong.

Dr. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity said that the universe must be contracting. He thought the universe was static and introduced a cosmological constant as a correction factor. He later called the constant "my biggest blunder" after accepting the Redshift Theory that the universe is expanding. It now appears his biggest blunder was the acceptance of his first blunder. Dr. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does not support an accelerating expansion.



Big Bang Flaw No. 5 - The Black Hole Dilemma

The Black Hole Theory appears to be true. Matter at the center of a galaxy as shown here can become so concentrated that the gravitational field prevents everything from leaving. Light cannot escape causing the matter to be invisible. X-rays cannot escape. The black hole appears by visual observation to be empty space. The black hole is not as large as the black center of this galaxy picture. The stars near the black hole have been drawn in. The gravitational force is large. This causes the diameter of a stable orbit to be very large. Black holes have been proven to be real because of the action of stars in orbit around the black hole, and a black hole bends light that passes nearby.

According to NASA, "One of the most energetic explosive events known is a supernova. These occur at the end of a star's lifetime, when its nuclear fuel is exhausted and it is no longer supported by the release of nuclear energy. If the star is particularly massive, then its core will collapse and in so doing will release a huge amount of energy. This will cause a blast wave that ejects the star's envelope into interstellar space. The result of the collapse may be, in some cases, a rapidly rotating neutron star that can be observed many years later as a radio pulsar."

A supernova has an escape velocity less than the speed of light. Therefore, light is emitted from a supernova and matter is blasted away at a velocity greater than the escape velocity. A black hole has greater mass than a supernova. Light and matter cannot escape from a black hole because the velocity required to escape the large gravitational field is greater than the speed of light, but light and matter cannot travel greater than the speed of light. A black hole cannot explode for this reason. All matter and light that is drawn into a black hole will remain there forever.

The origin of the universe just prior to the proposed Big Bang would be trillions of trillions of times more massive than any suspected black hole. We could think of this center as having infinite mass and having an infinite gravitational field. Nothing could escape. The matter could never expand. No explosion of any type could produce the power to blow the matter apart. Energy would be forced to revert back into matter by the massive gravitational field. The condition would be the reverse of a nuclear bomb where matter is converted into energy. It would become a unimaginable zone of intense gravity, intense mass density but zero energy. Electrons could not circle the nucleus of an atom. All electron motion would be pulled to a stop by the massive gravitational force. The space between electrons, protons and neutrons would become zero. The author calls the origin of the Big Bang a "Nonsense Hole" because it never existed.

Black holes are a reality that proves the Big Bang Theory to be a myth.



Big Bang Flaw No. 6 - The Big Bang Residue Went Missing

A supernova loses much of its mass during it's collapse and explosion as a massive star. The residue remaining after the explosion becomes a rapidly rotating neutron star or a radio pulsar.

Something should be left as residue from the Big Bang if the cosmos were created in this way, but the residue cannot be found. The residue should be relatively easy to find, if it existed, because the Earth is near the center of the cosmos, not far away in an edge galaxy.

A car bomb is another good analogy to the Big Bang Theory. The car fill with explosives is at the center of the blast. Objects close to the car are blown far away, but the residue of the car remains exactly where the blast occurred. The remaining residue mass from the Big Bang should have collapsed back to form a massive object. Other matter near the center should be seen as a spiral collapsing back into the center. Nothing can be found. It has gone missing or never existed.

The lack of physical evidence at the scene proves the Big Bang did not happen. There is no residue matter to be found that would have been left behind. There is not a massive black hole or any other object to identify the Big Bang origin. The Big Bang Theory is simply a myth that cannot stand a close examination of the physical evidence.



Big Bang Flaw No. 7 - The Impossible Computer Calculation

Scientists and computer geniuses cannot model the Big Bang Theory because the computer would simply say, "Cannot compute, cannot compute, cannot compute." Einstein's Theory of Relativity and other laws of science cannot be used in a computer program because the computer would simply say, "The Big Bang Theory is a myth."



Big Bang Flaw No. 8 - The Colliding Galaxies Dilemma

We can see from this picture that the two galaxies appear to be colliding. Many galaxy pairs are seen this way with some in the obvious exchange of matter. We should accept the obvious. Some galaxies are nearing a collision. Other pictures that are said to be collisions are obvious not. The difference is in the detail of the stars. Let us say you take a pictures with a telephoto lens of a train 10 miles (16.7 km) away traveling toward you. A man walking on the railroad tracks one mile (1.7) km) ahead of the train appears in the picture to be nearing his immediate death from the collision. The same deception can be seen with galaxies. One is behind the other. Click the image to see an enlargement.

Cosmologists tell us that some galaxies are traveling toward each other and are going to collide or have a near miss. This simply could not be true if they came from the same point of origin as stated by the Big Bang Theory. Galaxies cannot change direction. The scientific law of the conservation of momentum proves galaxies cannot change direction. Galaxies should all be expanding away from each other, not moving, or all moving toward each other according to the Big Bang Theory. Cosmologists say some are moving away from each other and some are moving toward each other. Somebody here is seriously wrong. The two galaxies colliding prove the Big Bang Theory is wrong. Astrophysicists should know better, but they are either brainwashed or intimidated into silence.

F = M * A

Sir Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) is one of the giants of science. Newton's second law of motion has never failed in theory or in observation. Newton's second law, which we can restate as force (F) equals the mass (M) multiplied by the acceleration (A) rate. This formula is very simple, but it is the foundation for calculations engineers and scientists use every day.

What this equation means is that the force applied to any object will cause it to accelerate. A planetary space probe will continue traveling in a straight line unless a force is applied to change the speed or change the direction. Rocket side thrusters can be fired to make a mid-course correction. Rocket thrusters built into the front of the space probe can be fired in the reverse direction to slow the space probe for achieving an orbit around a planet.

F = (G * M1 * M2) / D2

Kepler's laws of planetary motion defined the gravitational relationship between two objects. Gravity is something we all understand when we fall off a ladder. Each particle of matter on Earth and in the universe attracts every other particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The formula above gives the force developed by this attraction. The force accelerates our fall from the ladder until we hit the ground. You will not go floating off into space in some other direction one day.

The force (F), Newtons, equals the product of the gravitational constant (G) times the mass of the first object (M1), kilograms, times the mass of the second object (M2), kilograms, divided by the square of the distance (D), meters, between the centers of gravity of the two masses. The gravitational constant (G) has the value of G = 6.672 × 10-11 N m2 kg-2. The weight you see when you step on a scale is the force between you, the Earth and everything else in the universe. The space probe in our example above is attracted by everything else in the universe as well. The probe enters an orbit around another planet when the gravitational force of the planet equals the centrifugal force required to travel in a circle. These two laws can be proven by spinning a mass on the end of a wire or by observing any galaxy in the cosmos. Stars are held a precise orbit within a galaxy because these two laws are exact and true in every galaxy of the cosmos.

A galaxy can't make a right-hand turn.
A galaxy can't make a left-hand turn either.
Colliding galaxies decimates the Big Bang Theory.


Einstein proposed in his General Theory of Relativity that both distance and time are flexible forming a single entity he called spacetime. He proposed that very high gravity forces warp spacetime causing a very small deviation from Newton's formula that ignored time. Many modern scientists and science writers have the audacity to claim Newton's formula proposed in 1666 to be wrong. Newton's formula was one of the most brilliant scientific achievements know to mankind. His formula is still used to this day in placing space probes into proper orbit around distant planets. One cannot find a formula for Einstein's gravity calculations because it is simply to complex to be practical. The reasons for the harsh criticism and hatred of Newton by some science writers boggles the mind. Perhaps it is because Newton believed the cosmos was created by God. The correction of Newton's formula involves changing the exponent of the radius from 2.0 to 2.00000016. This is less than 2 parts in one million. Modern scientists and science writers invalidate this change because it is based on observation, not theory where G = 6.672 × 10-11 N m2 kg-2.00000016.

Einstein's original theory of gravity showed the cosmos to be collapsing, not expanding as suggest by the Redshift Theory. Einstein proved that gravity changes the direction of light but failed to theorize that gravity can therefore increase or decrease the speed of light. Because of this misunderstanding he accepted Hubble's Redshift Theory and added a fudge factor into in gravity calculations. He believed that his theory was wrong. Yet scientists and science writers withhold criticism of Einstein's fudge factor that was based solely on observation without any theoretical basis. They worship Einstein because he half-heartily accepted the Big Bang Theory. Einstein's original General Theory of Relativity showed the Redshift Theory to be theoretically wrong.

The combination of the Redshift Theory and the Big Bang Theory has a critical fatal flaw. Both of these equations are violated when galaxies are found to be traveling toward each other. The fireworks picture at the top of this page illustrates the errors in the Redshift and Big Bang theories. You can see that no two objects in the fireworks are traveling toward each other. They are getting farther apart as they expand from the center. The Big Bang Theory violates many laws of science that are proven daily by theory, observation and experimentation. Scientists who would like to keep their jobs and keep the research money rolling in had better keep their mouths shut. Research money for topics that would easily prove the Big Bang Theory to be wrong is non existent. The intimidation of those scientists rejecting the Big Bang Theory is extreme.



Big Bang Flaw No. 9 - The Expanding Gas Cloud Dilemma

Big Bang enthusiasts tell us the original explosion sent out clouds of hydrogen and helium gases that compressed and coalesced into galaxies and stars. There is a big problem with this idea. Clouds of gases don't compress and coalesce into a more dense mass. Just the opposite is the scientific truth. Gases expand and become less dense. The gravitational force is smaller than the molecular diffusion force as determined by Fick's law of diffusion. Clouds of gases in the universe can be seen with the Hubble telescope as with Gaseous Pillars M16 in this picture. These clouds are not coalescing or collapsing into a more dense mass. Stars cannot be formed this way. There is not enough gas in a given space to make a star. The gas would simply drift way and dissipate. Obviously, the gases in this cosmos picture are not coalescing into a star or galaxy. They maintain their odd shapes because of the very low gravitational forces present. Click the image to see an enlargement.

Our smaller planets prove that gas clouds could not form stars. The planet Mercury does not have an atmosphere because gases simply float away into space. The planet does not have enough gravity to keep the gas molecules captured. Our Moon is another example. A cloud of gas released on the surface of the Moon would simply float off into space.

A gas cloud could not form a galaxy, star or planet. The outer fringes of the cloud would dissipate and the cloud would get smaller and smaller. The only possibility is that the galaxy, star or planet had dense matter from the beginning. The gas cloud theory is a bunch of hot air.



Big Bang Flaw No. 10 - Cosmos Background Radiation Went Missing

Cosmologists who support the Big Bang Theory had predicted that the initial explosion would leave behind background or microwave radiation. They were elated when radiation similar to that expected was accidentally discovered in 1965. They thought this certainly confirmed the Big Bang Theory, but it did not. The theory is still in a shambles because the background radiation has gone missing.

The background radiation discovered is certainly not from the Big Bang. It is simply radiation produced by the stars, galaxies and other matter in the universe. The radiation simply does not fit the requirements of the Big Bang.

The background radiation is omni directional. It comes from every direction possible, not from the suspected Big Bang point of origin.

The background radiation is too weak. The Big Bang should have produced a much stronger radiation measurement. It fits the radiation expected from galaxies instead.

The radiation is too smooth. It is very even and does not fit the Big Bang Theory.

The background radiation temperature spectrum is too low.

The background radiation has the wrong spectrum. It does not match the black body spectrum as expected.

Rather than being supportive and confirming the Big Bang Theory, the background radiation adds more doubt. The background radiation matches all expectation as coming from the galaxies of the cosmos. The background radiation expected from the Big Bang Theory does not exist because the event never happened.



Big Bang Flaw No. 11 - Expanding Space Addendum Falters and Fails

Cosmologists push the Big Bang Theory in school curriculums as if it were the truth, while many have doubts themselves. A new addendum has been proposed in an attempt to keep the Big Bang Theory from utter collapse. The expanding space addendum is basically an admission that the Big Bang Theory has many faults. The expanding space concept is an attempt to resolve them. Click the image to see an enlargement.

The expanding space idea suggests that the Big Bang was not a gigantic explosion but was instead an expansion of space. The proponents claim the speed of light is not a limitation in the expanding space concept because expanding space has no speed limitation. The speed of light is only a limitation within the boundaries of space. This proposal suggests that space has edges, and if you go too far you will fall off. This concept is reminiscent of the old flat Earth idea commonly accepted several centuries ago. Sailors refrained from venturing too far out to sea for fear of falling off the edge of the flat Earth. Things never change.

The expanding space concept has many flaws. Space is not a physical body that has limits. Space is not something that can move or have dimensions. Space is not expanding. Space is infinite. Space is simply the absence of matter.

Another major flaw in the expanding space concept can be seen in distant galaxies. If space were expanding, we should see the size of distant galaxies expanding as well. Space exists between the stars that make up a galaxy. The expanding space proponents simply sidestep this problem by saying space expands all around a galaxy but not within the galaxy. No! This logic does not compute. The expanding space theory has no scientific support or observational support. Space cannot be seen, felt, measured or observed because space is nothing. We call this nothingness, space. Space should not be treated as if it were something. Nice try, guys, but that dog won't hunt.

God Stretched Out The Heavens

The decay in the speed of light theory shows that the universe is not as old as modern science calculates. The theory also explains why Adam and Eve had very long lives, and longevity of people after the fall of Adam began to decline in concert with a decay in the speed of light. The decay in the speed of light theory is also supported by the Bible which states that God "stretched out the heavens" in Isaiah 42:5, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13 and Jeremiah 10:12. The stretching out of the heavens and the decay in the speed of light make present day galaxies appear to be billions of light years away as calculated by the current speed of light. In fact, they could be much closer and the age of the universe much less because of this "stretching" and the associated higher speed of light. This theory is not the same as the expanding space theory that is devoid of an explanation for the expansion.

The picture is the center of the M-51 Whirlpool Galaxy taken by the Hubble Telescope. It is sometimes called the "Cross Galaxy." Click the image to see an enlargement.

Reports of the Death of Speed of Light Decay are Premature

Studies Suggest the Speed of Light has Decreased in the Past 300 Years

The stretching of the heavens as described in the Bible may simply mean that God spread the galaxies across the cosmos over a vast expanse that we see with modern telescopes. The speed of light could very well have remained constant since the creation or it could be in a state of decay.



Big Bang Flaw No. 12 - Time, Distance and Age are all Messed up

The Big Bang Theory demands that older galaxies be toward the outer edge of the cosmos, but this is not the case. Galaxies very far away should be old but some appear to be young. Galaxies close to us should be young since we are said to be near the center, but some appear to be old. The Big Bang Theory is simply a mess.

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.


The Bible correctly describes the decrepit state of the supporters of the Big Bang Theory.

Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none who does good.

ROMANS 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.



The Cosmos is a Steady-State but Dynamic Universe Giving Birth to New Galaxies

Observational astronomer Dr. Halton Arp has proposed in his book, Seeing Red, that the cosmos is a steady-state universe. There was no Big Bang, and there is no expansion. The older galaxies have a low red shift instead of a high red shift as required by the Big Bang Theory. Some old galaxies are giving birth to twin quasars that have a high red shift. The quasars are ejected from opposite sides of the parent galaxy at a high speed calculated to be between a fraction of the speed of light to near the speed of light. The red shift difference between the quasar twins confirms they are moving at equal speeds but in opposite directions. The quasars continue into the universe where each will become a new galaxy. Dr. Arp's conclusions match the observations we see in the universe. The Big Bang Theory does not.

God created the original cosmos. God is in control. The cosmos is dynamic with old galaxies giving birth to new galaxies. This can be proven by observation. Galaxies can be seen in clusters with old galaxies and young galaxies in the same cluster. Newly created galaxies can be ejected from a twin quasar in any random direction, not expanding as claimed by the Big Bang Theory. This dynamics accounts for the fact that some galaxies are colliding with each other. All of these observations prove the Big Bang Theory to be a myth of gigantic proportions.

Picture of a Galaxy Giving Birth to Twin Quasars

Top Ten Media Myths about UFOs, Aliens, Bigfoot, Abominable Snowman, Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, Roswell, Area 51, Piltdown Man, Antigravity, Crop Circles, Bermuda Triangle and Life on Mars

Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's
Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible

Absolute Scientific Proof Evolution Is Dead

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang by Meta Research.

Darwinism Refuted by Modern Science

Homo Florensis and the Facts Emerging About the Evolution Myth

The Collapse of Darwinism and the Fact of Creation

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

Why We Believe in Creation not in Evolution

Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

The Gap Theory of Creation by Gaines Johnson

k0be:

Rather than argue with you over the things "you" said, I'll provide even more faults with cosmology.

Once again, if you're not interested in discussion, then stop trolling this thread - start a new one. Why is "you" in quotation marks? Also, cosmology does have faults. No one has claimed the subject doesn't.

While you're over there throwing your words, know that these are scientists that spent a great deal of their time racking up evidence to combat cosmology.

Scientistists racking up evidence to combat cosmology? Sounds like a paradox. In any case, could you tell me what's wrong with the words I was "throwing"?

If you followed most of the links you would find more extensive lists of the sources they used.

The relative few I looked up were hopelessly outdated and usually well over two decades old.


Once again, stop spamming this thread. If you are not going to engage in discussion with your own words, you might as well just give the google link - that would, at the very least, stop the clutter.

k0be:

Big Bang Flaw No. 2 - The Red Light Shift Theory

The "Red Light Shift Theory" is in big trouble. Perhaps this should be listed as Big Bang Flaw No. 1 because it gave birth to the Big Bang Theory. The red light shift theory is the very foundation for the Big Bang Theory. The theory was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 and became known as the Hubble Redshift Theory. The concept of a universe expanding from a single source at a real point of time in the past was developed because Dr. Hubble discovered the red light shift. Dr. Hubble found that very distant galaxy clusters were emitting light with a red shift. The thought was that a distant body was moving away from us because the light emitted had a shift to a longer wave length caused by the velocity. This is called the Doppler effect in sound waves. White light emitted from an object that is moving away at a high speed appears in the red spectrum. The light appears in the violet or blue spectrum when the object is moving toward the viewer. The concept is simple, perhaps too simple. The Redshift Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.


,way.com/bigbang.html

Last sentence first. No, the idea isn't that the Earth is the center of the Universe - that's a total misunderstanding. First, there is no "centre" in Universe (mostly due to the fact that there is no outside of the Universe). Second, the reason the Earth is generally used as point of reference is simply because we are on Earth. If we were on some other planet, solar system or galaxy, we would use that as a reference - the other distant bodies will still be receding relative to us, and the findings of redshift would still apply. One of the best analogies I've come across to help explain the point is the expansion of a balloon. Draw a point or certain points on or in a balloon. As the balloon expands, irrespective of where the point is situated (as long as it's on the body of the balloon), the effect observed should be more or less similar to that which we observe with the expansion of Space.

The idea that the speed of light is a constant is nebulous at best (a little humor there). In our small little world the speed of light appears to be constant only because we cannot measure the change over a large distance. This problem is analogous to saying the speed of a bullet fired from a gun is constant. It appears to be constant if you measure the bullet velocity one meter from the end of the barrel and measure it again two meters from the barrel. However, the truth is revealed if you measure the velocity 1000 meters from the barrel. The air and gravity slow the bullet as predicted by the laws of science.

No, the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. To claim otherwise is, at this point, to not only contradict everything else you've posted (that has happened a few times, but I suspect that's what happens when you copy/post en masse, without bothering to read or understand what they say), but also to claim something so extraordinary that would need extraordinary evidence.

What about light? Light has mass and the bullet has mass. The fact that light has mass was proven and measured many years ago. Light is affected by gravity that is produced by other masses. Light bends as it travels past distant planets, stars and galaxies. Certainly the numerous masses in the universe can slow or accelerate the light by gravitational attraction. White light emitted by a stationary object will appear as redshift light if the velocity is slowed for any reason. So what made Dr. Hubble think that the light speed was not affected by gravitational fields in the universe? I suppose he didn't stop to consider all of the alternatives.

Because, maybe, he wasn't an idiot?

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.


The Bible correctly describes the decrepit state of the supporters of the Big Bang Theory.

Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none who does good.

ROMANS 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.



The Cosmos is a Steady-State but Dynamic Universe Giving Birth to New Galaxies

I would like to point out that it makes little sense to claim that those who accept the Big Bang theory are all God hating schmoes. The truth is, the majority are theists and a great deal of those are Christians. In fact, the pioneer of the theory was a priest.

Also, it's interesting to see that you claim the Universe is a steady state, etc. That, incidentally, was the main argument that many non-religious used to support the idea that the Universe had to be unchanging and eternal (in the sense that there was no start of time). Some what Ironic, no?

By the way, you do know that the first Bible verse contradicts steady state, yes?

k0be:

1. I never claimed that Christians cannot enjoy comfortable lifestyles
2. Christians enjoying comfortable lifestyles mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the value of Christianity in itself. The Christian plantation owners in the pre civil war US south did enjoy comfortable lifestyles as well, what on earth does that do to establish the value of Christianity?

How exactly do the altar boys establish the value of christianity in itself? Did christianity tell them to go out there and commit whatever crimes you're accusing them of, no.

Ah, now I say that altar boys establish the value of christianity. Good to know you can read my mind better than I can myself. No wonder you seem to suffer from a persecution complex. The big bad secularists are coming after you.
More specifically about the altar boys (as apparently I need to spell everything out in detail), in the Roman Catholic church, you have priests that are forced to be celibate. This together with the overall messed up sexual morality in Christianity stunts their normal sexual development and they turn to easy victims: altar boys and others under the loving care of the holy mother the church There have been countless cases like this and the church, in it's overall benevolence, has decided that it is better to cover it up than to tackle the problem at it's roots. As a result thousands of young boys' lives have been destroyed.

k0be:

Here you are, now retorting to blames because you want so hard to eliminate christianity. Put yourself out of your misery, go sip on some orange juice to cool your nerves, blame the people for the slavery that went on in the south, some of the slave owners just happened to be christians(or so they say).

The Bible was the prime justification for slavery in the US. There are countless passages that explicitly or implicitly condone slavery, but of course, as a good Christian, you must selectively pick and choose form the Bible to maintain a semblance of morality and ignore the dark sides of your religion.

k0be:

It was only a matter of time anyway until their Biblical tactics of justifying slavery were foiled.
Morevover, it isn't written anywhere in the Bible that "christians are perfect" or that christians are without fault.

No but all those feeble (or closed) minded people that exclaim that the Bible is the source of our morality have nothing to back up their case. Some foundation for a good [/i]life it is.

k0be:

3. Where exactly did you encounter any instances of me being paranoid or unstable? Or maybe it's the usual Christian apologist tactic of redefining words, like the re-definition of the word 'good' to explain the goodness of God in the face of evil in this world.

Your paranoia and instability are causing you to schizophrenically blame christianity for the shattered ruin that is slowly becoming of your life.

You're nothing if not funny, lol. I guess projection and assertion without evidence must be other esteemed Christian values and let's not forget repetition

k0be:

Why did I say this? Because out of the blue you brought up the story about some make-belief altar boys raping your soul. I want to assure you that it's okay and everything will be alright.

Did I now? You really have a vivid imagination.

k0be:

Condemning molested altar boys? Where did I do that? Anyway, you may or may not know that atheism in itself is not a world view, it's merely the lack of God-belief. Atheists can be just as delusional and destructive as theists (and there have been a few examples in the 20th century), but this does not follow directly from atheism, unlike the rejection of rational thought and it's consequences that follow from Christian theism.

oh sure, you claim you never condemned altar boys, but you blamed christianity for breeding menacing altar boys.

Such a fantasy, you should start writing novels. Maybe you can contribute to the rapture series

k0be:

What difference is it that I also blamed atheism for creating serial killers. You are very good at amalgamating so I guess I learned that strategy from you.

Evidence, my dear Watson, evidence.

k0be:

You are very backwards, you say atheists can be just as destructive as theists yet you're very quick to combat that statement by claiming "it doesn't follow directly from atheism" on top of that you used that opportunity to try and drag christianity down even more.

Backwards, eh? Could you elaborate on that or is it just another one of your empty assertions.

k0be:

Don't mistake me for a fool lol, you're a funny m8. Christianity doesn't reject your rational thought, christians just urge you to listen when they explain to you why certain things are the way they are, is that too hard for you to comprehend?

OK then, [b]why [/b]are [b]which [/b]things [b]what [/b]way exactly?

k0be:

Anyway, I guess Stephen Weinberg captured it very well: Yes 'our world' you know the one you and I inhabit? Perhaps you're an alien from outer-space you certainly reason like one.
You really have a hard time bringing substance to this interchange of ideas, haven't you? Please establish where I reason like an alien from outer-space instead of just merely asserting it.

Why else would you ask the question: our world? Does it take a genius to figure out which world I was implying. Only an alien from outerspace would have asked that sort of question, in my opinion, hence my conclusion.

People with a proper grounding in scientific reasoning would understand that precise definitions are a [i]conditio sine qae non for any attempt at explanation, but I guess that's lost on a muddy theistic mind like yours.

k0be:

Really? Can you then begin to explain why the theories of modern cosmology are shaky and why you have a more parsimonious explanation?
You're still in the process of merely asserting things.

I decided to quench your thirst by providing the post above this, and heads up, there's more to come.

I'll leave the dismantling of your plagiarised copy-paste arguments to KAG, as he's far better in physics than I am. Just a shame chrisd [/i]is no longer active on the board, he would have dissected and dismantled your poor excuse for reasoning with the elegance and aplomb only a christian physicist can bring.

k0be:

Unlike you, I value proper deductive and inductive reasoning from well established premisses and data points. I'm not really fond of vague innuendo and unfounded, unevidenced statements of fact. Or maybe you're denying your own (for once) crystal clear words:Typical apologetics, ignore 90% of one's post and focus on the 10% against which you think you can bring a compelling case. I urge you though to also tackle abiogenesis, biological evolution and to substantiate your claims about my lack of logical abilities.

It appeared to me that you valued backwardsness. 3/4 or 4/5 of your posts to me have been based on nothing but pure shenanigans you pulled out of your as$ so don't try to come at me with that nonsense about statement of facts.
Now will you stop crying&panting, I have responded fully to your post.

Just like the apologetical treatise by [i]CS Lewis, your Mere Christianity seems to be nothing more than Mere Assertion or maybe Mere Insults in combination with Mere Mindreading

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang", expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.

Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.

Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question:

Does God Exist?



Footnotes:

Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space, (1996) p. 11.
W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
See http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-022.pdf
See http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-rosetta.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-021.pdf; see also http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-redshift.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-affirmed.pdf


source: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

I got bored reading your posts, they made me doze off otherwise I would have made an effort to quote your lines one by one and respond to you.
But that can continue for a lengthy period and I have no such time to spare on ignorant minds.

I should have stopped responding to you two hollow individuals a few posts ago. I've come to realize we don't need a theory to propose how our universe works, or what-not about its existence.
I would not waste my time glorifying a mere buggy theory such as this bad bang. We already have enough theories that attempt to explain how our universe works.
Scientists are so funny, any time they try to propse a theory and they realize it doesn't work they will try to propose another theory and it continues like a chain until they find something that works for a while
and not until someone raises some questions to destroy that theory will they begin to devise another theory.

Keep drooling over the Big Bang theory like it is some kind of divine truth. It's only a theory, try and find something else that better fits the data.

p.s.: stop crying mami-water over copy paste, I don't recall saying anywhere that I'm taking credits for the questions raised concerning the big bang, I provided links where needed and I keep mentioning that these are scientists who used legible source in combating the big bang theory. so please spare me your plagiarism story isiewu.
more faults with big bang coming soon by the way. this is so much fun I can get used to this.

o man, guys una dey type oh, why not go work as a typist as a second job?

k0be:

I got bored reading your posts, they made me doze off otherwise I would have made an effort to quote your lines one by one and respond to you.
But that can continue for a lengthy period and I have no such time to spare on ignorant minds.

Of course, as that would detract from incessant copy/pasting.

I should have stopped responding to you two hollow individuals a few posts ago. I've come to realize we don't need a theory to propose how our universe works, or what-not about its existence.

Why? Apart from the fact we humans are naturally curious animals, understanding our Universe could perhaps help us - someday - control our (and perhaps that of other beings too) fate. Besides, if otehr human had taken your stance, you probably won't be here typing and encouraging ignorance (a small price to pay).

I would not waste my time glorifying a mere buggy theory such as this bad bang.

You did just that with your last copy/paste.

We already have enough theories that attempt to explain how our universe works.

No we don't.

Scientists are so funny, any time they try to propse a theory and they realize it doesn't work they will try to propose another theory and it continues like a chain until they find something that works for a while
and not until someone raises some questions to destroy that theory will they begin to devise another theory.

You'd rather scientists were dogmatic and tread theories like religions? Evidence is collected and observations and calculations are made; theories are then proposed based on those. If new evidence (not assertions, mere utterances, and pseudo-science) falsifies the theory, then the theory is left for a new one that incorporates the evidence - that's what happened with the steady state theory when evidence for the Big Bang came along; it's a pity you haven't been able to leave it.

Keep drooling over the Big Bang theory like it is some kind of divine truth. It's only a theory, try and find something else that better fits the data.

No one - perhaps, except misinformed Christians, like you - considers it to be divine truth. The theory coupled with inflation is what fits the data. If you had bothered to read up on it, you'd have realised that.

p.s.: stop crying mami-water over copy paste, I don't recall saying anywhere that I'm taking credits for the questions raised concerning the big bang, I provided links where needed and I keep mentioning that these are scientists who used legible source in combating the big bang theory. so please spare me your plagiarism story isiewu.
more faults with big bang coming soon by the way. this is so much fun I can get used to this.

You don't get it, do you?

well only time will tell, when rapture comes calling, if eventually it comes to past, what would you be doing or saying then?

honeric01:

well only time will tell, when rapture comes calling,

What will the rapture tell?

if eventually it comes to past, what would you be doing or saying then?

It's highly unlikely that anything of the sort will occur; if, however, it does, I'll do my best to to survive.

Before you came to this earth, someone else already said what you are saying now, and in the end, they come to realized the truth, so i don't have to prove to you that i know the way since right from your mindset, you have already concluded, so the only thing that will prove me right is when revelation completes itself, already in progress, approaching completion.
If you don't believe Rapture will occur, that's your own problem not mine, at least you have heard the truth and the truth is the only thing that's going to set you free, you believe you will survive good, that's what the people before you said, how i wished you would be given the chance by God to see where they are now, ! but unfortunately God does not deal with doubters and blasphemers.

@ honeric01:

The end will come within the lifetime of Jesus's listeners.

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew16:28
"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27
"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:3
"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64
"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1
"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30
"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Mark 14:62
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:3
"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" -- John 21:22

The end will come within the lifetime of the the New Testament authors.

"Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ , that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:7-8
"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none." -- 1 Corinthians 7:29
"That ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. -- Philippians 1:10
"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." -- 1 Thessalonians 4:17
"I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:23
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, " -- Hebrews 1:2
"But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." -- Hebrews 9:26
"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." -- 1 Peter 1:20
"But the end of all things is at hand." -- 1 Peter 4:7
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." -- 1 John 2:18

The end will come soon. (Within a couple thousand years or so.)

"The Lord is at hand." -- Philippians 4:5
"For the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." -- James 5:8
"For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry." -- Hebrews 10:37
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. -- Revelation 1:1
"The time is at hand." -- Revelation 1:3
"Behold, I come quickly." -- Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 22:12
"Surely I come quickly." -- Revelation 22:20

from: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/end.html

lol, i love it when you peeps self-service over Christianity, it's so hysterical

honeric01:

Before you came to this earth, someone else already said what you are saying now, and in the end, they come to realized the truth, so i don't have to prove to you that i know the way since right from your mindset, you have already concluded, so the only thing that will prove me right is when revelation completes itself, already in progress, approaching completion.

I agree, most ideas aren't entirely unique; however, how do you know "they" have come to realise the truth? I'm not asking for proof, I'm just asking for something tangible.

If you don't believe Rapture will occur, that's your own problem not mine, at least you have heard the truth and the truth is the only thing that's going to set you free, you believe you will survive good, that's what the people before you said, how i wished you would be given the chance by God to see where they are now, ! but unfortunately God does not deal with doubters and blasphemers.

Yes, the truth can be liberating - perhaps I've been liberated? I don't know if I'd survive if something like the rapture occurs, but I will try. I've heard God - the Christian God - does deal with doubters and blasphemers.

gbade. x:

lol, i love it when you peeps self-service over Christianity, it's so hysterical

It's probably due to taking the beginning of Matthew 11:28 out of context.

Well not here to argue! you heard all that i said, if you like, put in use any of the words and statements.

nferyn:

@ honeric01:

The end will come within the lifetime of Jesus's listeners.

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew16:28
"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27
"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:3
"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64
"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1
"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30
"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Mark 14:62
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:3
"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" -- John 21:22

The end will come within the lifetime of the the New Testament authors.

"Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ , that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:7-8
"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none." -- 1 Corinthians 7:29
"That ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. -- Philippians 1:10
"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." -- 1 Thessalonians 4:17
"I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:23
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, " -- Hebrews 1:2
"But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." -- Hebrews 9:26
"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." -- 1 Peter 1:20
"But the end of all things is at hand." -- 1 Peter 4:7
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." -- 1 John 2:18

The end will come soon. (Within a couple thousand years or so.)

"The Lord is at hand." -- Philippians 4:5
"For the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." -- James 5:8
"For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry." -- Hebrews 10:37
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. -- Revelation 1:1
"The time is at hand." -- Revelation 1:3
"Behold, I come quickly." -- Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 22:12
"Surely I come quickly." -- Revelation 22:20

from: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/end.html

So what is your point here? i don't understand what you are trying to clarify here

honeric01:

So what is your point here? i don't understand what you are trying to clarify here

You were the one 'warning' us for the coming rapture. Let's say the Bible gives mixed messages when it comes to the end times and both your 'concern' and veiled threats are totally misplaced.

nferyn:

You were the one 'warning' us for the coming rapture. Let's say the Bible gives mixed messages when it comes to the end times and both your 'concern' and veiled threats are totally misplaced.

I don't have to argue with you man, no need for that! all i have to say is that it may look complicated to you because the bible is not a novel for you to want to use your human (canal) thinking to interpret, that's why he Holy spirit is needed for you to understand the meanings and interpretations okay?.
Lastly, i get to have the upperhand, believing in God and accepting Jesus Christ at the same time, i have nothing to lose, and even if those things in the bible refuse to come to past as you and some people would want it to be, then i won't be losing in both ways, you see, but the number one thing is to be born again and accept Jesus as your lord and personal savior, that's all, have no more to say to you or KAG, i rest my case.

you're still here rapping dust with these things.
I already showed them the many faults inside the debauchery of a theory they worship, yet they're here sperming over christianity, na wa o.

i don't leave them alone, aja ti o ba fe sonu, kokin gbor fere ode!