Interesting thoughts on the "Big Bang"

graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Interesting thoughts on the "Big Bang"

Post by graybear13 »

David Franks wrote:Don't try to blame me for your sorry ass. Your humiliation and/or shame are strictly up to you; you just don't know it (or believe it) yet.
I am just challenging the prevailing doctrine of the Theory of Creation and all I have gotten, so far, from you people is venomous, malignant hatred. I get the feeling you would kill me If you thought you could get away with it, Savonarola wanted to "T" bone me in my car to prove his point a while back. I'm starting to wonder if you can be 'good without God'. :?

I guess I must be scaring the hell out of you, I don't apologize for that, it's my job to talk about the truth I see even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

The only way to approach evil is to look him in the eye and don't back down. :twisted:

regards gray
User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Interesting thoughts on the "Big Bang"

Post by David Franks »

graybear13 wrote:I am just challenging the prevailing doctrine of the Theory of Creation and all I have gotten, so far, from you people is venomous, malignant hatred.
Either you aggrandize yourself, or you have no discernment. Nothing we have said in this thread can be reasonably construed as hateful. Hatred requires hate.
I get the feeling you would kill me If you thought you could get away with it,
That's just asinine. What a frail, nervous, yet egotistical thing you are. Hardly deserving of the "bear" moniker.
Savonarola wanted to "T" bone me in my car to prove his point a while back.
In other words, he had a reason other than hatred.
I'm starting to wonder if you can be 'good without God'. :?
Even if we wanted to kill you, that would be no indication that we are not good without God. God is taken to be good-- indeed, He is supposedly the impersonification of Good; God also wants to kill things from time to time. Wanting to kill, then, does not in and of itself prevent one's being good.
I guess I must be scaring the hell out of you,
There is no hell. But I find you amusing.
I don't apologize for that,
Nor should you. It would be delusional.
it's my job to talk about the truth I see even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
Job? Really? Wow-- a career in bovine fertilizer deployment. But, seriously-- it doesn't bother me a bit, particularly when you qualify it as being the truth you see, rather than The Truth. You are entitled to your hallucinations; you are not entitled to denigrate consensus, others or the work of others merely because they do not share your hallucinations.
The only way to approach evil is to look him in the eye and don't back down. :twisted:
Let's see: I say you're passive-aggressive, you say I'm evil, yet somehow you're the one who scares the hell out of me. That makes about as much sense as anything else you've said.
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Interesting thoughts on the "Big Bang"

Post by Dardedar »

graybear13 wrote: I am just challenging the prevailing doctrine of the Theory of Creation and all I have gotten, so far, from you people is venomous, malignant hatred.
I only wish your stuff could be considered as having risen to the level of being considered for the category of "challenging." For instance, we get:
Here is an interesting thought on the big bang...IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!!!!
It has become nothing more than a dogma by the big shots in physics, a
doctrine of baffling mathematics that Hawking and Penrose just pulled out
of their asses.
Yet whenever you burp this up, and you've burped it up many times, I simply once again contrast the multiple lines of evidence we have established which point to a BB, and consider this in light of your complete absence of evidence for anything you say about the matter. And then, even worse, your constant demonstration that you don't remotely understand the basics of the physics concepts in question. Again, as you were told back in 2011:
DAR
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the reasons/evidence for why the Big Bang is the prevailing theory (and essentially the only game in town). Notice: That Lamaitre may have had religious motivations, is not, and would not, ever have anything to do with such a list:

a) Large-scale homogeneity
b) Hubble Diagram
c) Abundances of light elements
d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
f) Large-scale structure of the universe
g) Age of stars
h) Evolution of galaxies
i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
j) Tolman tests
k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
m) Dark Matter
n) Dark Energy

Some of these were predicted by BB theory and have since been confirmed. Each one of the above is carefully explained, in laymen's terms here.

As we say to the creationists... what have you got in support of your "theory?" Or do you even have one? (They don't).
And you don't either. Just bum product and wank.
GRAY
"...it's my job to talk about the truth I see even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
I think you're basically a troll and can't find anyone else to respond to your Quack-pottery.
The only way to approach evil is to look him in the eye and don't back down.
Yes, because people who go along with standard lines of scientific evidence in the place of cranks who don't know their bum from a hole in the ground, are "evil."

D.
-----------------
And then there is the W. Harter challenge our little Deepak Chopra clone and Urantia book plagiarizer has been consistently ducking since May of 2009:
Mr. graybear asks, "Where does the mass come from?"

First, is he aware that several definitions of mass exist? There are established formulas for these that involve the speed of light (c) and (for most of them) the speed (u) or energy (E) of the object in question, be it a "particle" or a light wave or (in plasma or condensed matter physics) combination of both.

In order to conduct an intelligent dialog with Mr. g, it will be necessary for him to know of and understand these definitions and concepts.

Could he begin by giving these formulas (or equivalent verbal description) for the ones listed below (in order of their discovery)?
1. (circa 1550) Galileo's mass: (Ratio of momentum to velocity)
2. (circa 1650) Newton's mass: (Ratio of change in momentum to change in velocity)
3. (circa 1905) Einstein's mass: (Constant)

These definitions continue to be useful in modern quantum theory, the currently fundamental physics. Indeed, their exact definitions are key to QT.

If Mr. g is interested in refreshing his memory about this, a website listed by fayfreethinkers provides same. Detailed URL will be supplied on request.
At least you did note:
Dr. Harter knows well that I am not trained in these things.
That does not mean I don't understand their bottom line.
So you aren't trained in these things, and you don't grasp even the foundational concepts of the topic or the language used, but people are suppose to take your mutterings seriously? Boring.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Interesting thoughts on the "Big Bang"

Post by graybear13 »

Darrel wrote:
Yet whenever you burp this up, and you've burped it up many times, I simply once again contrast the multiple lines of evidence we have established which point to a BB, and consider this in light of your complete absence of evidence for anything you say about the matter. And then, even worse, your constant demonstration that you don't remotely understand the basics of the physics concepts in question. Again, as you were told back in 2011:
DAR
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the reasons/evidence for why the Big Bang is the prevailing theory (and essentially the only game in town). Notice: That Lamaitre may have had religious motivations, is not, and would not, ever have anything to do with such a list:

a) Large-scale homogeneity
b) Hubble Diagram
c) Abundances of light elements
d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
f) Large-scale structure of the universe
g) Age of stars
h) Evolution of galaxies
i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
j) Tolman tests
k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
m) Dark Matter
n) Dark Energy

Some of these were predicted by BB theory and have since been confirmed. Each one of the above is carefully explained, in laymen's terms here.

As we say to the creationists... what have you got in support of your "theory?" Or do you even have one? (They don't).
And you don't either. Just bum product and wank.
Big bang might be the only game in your
town but it is not the only game. I can take
your list of 'reasons/evidence' and wrap them
around my 'bulls eye' -quantum gravity as the
source of creation-and eliminate the laughable
notion of a singularity and at the same time
solve the mystery of quantum gravity.

regards gray
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Interesting thoughts on the "Big Bang"

Post by Savonarola »

graybear13 wrote:I can take your list of 'reasons/evidence' and wrap them
around my 'bulls eye' -quantum gravity as the source of creation-and eliminate the laughable notion of a singularity and at the same time solve the mystery of quantum gravity.
Sure you can. Post a link to the article you write on the topic once it appears in a scientific journal.
Post Reply