Interesting thoughts on the "Big Bang"

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8168
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Interesting thoughts on the "Big Bang"

Postby Dardedar » Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:47 pm

The Big Bang was NOT a Fireworks Display!

"The BIG BANG wasn't really big. Nor was it really a bang. Even the name "Big Bang" originally was a put-down cooked up by a scientist who didn't like the concept when it was first put forth. He favored the idea that the universe had always existed in a much more dignified and fundamentally unchanging, steady state.

But the name stuck, and with it has come the completely wrong impression that the event was like an explosion and that the universe is expanding today because the objects in it are being flung apart like fragments of a detonated bomb.

Virtually every basic aspect of this intuitive image for the Big Bang (we ARE stuck with the name) is incorrect.

So, how should we think about the Big Bang? Our mental 'fireworks' image of the Big Bang contains these basic elements: 1) A pre-existing sky or space into which the fragments from the explosion are injected; 2) A pre-existing time we can use to mark when the explosion happened; 3) Individual projectiles moving through space from a common center; 4) A definite moment when the explosion occurred; and 5) Something that started the Big Bang. All of these elements to our visualization of the Big Bang are completely false according to mainstream astrophysical theory.

Preexisting Space?
There wasn't any!

Preexisting Time?
There wasn't any of this either!

Individual objects moving out from a common center?
Nope! Curved space distorts the paths of particles, sometimes in very dramatic ways. If you stepped into a space ship and tried to travel to the edge of the universe and look beyond, it would be impossible. Not only could you not reach a supposed "edge" of the universe no matter how long or how fast you traveled, in a closed universe, you would eventually find yourself arriving where you departed. The curvature of space would bring you right back, in something like the way the curvature of Earth would bring you home if you flew west and never changed course. In other words, the universe has no edge in space. There is nothing beyond the farthest star.

As a mental anchor, many have used the expanding balloon as an analogy to the expanding universe. As seen from any one spot on the balloon's surface, all other spots rush away from it as the balloon is inflated. There is no one center to the expansion ON THE SURFACE of the balloon that is singled out as the center of the Big Bang. This is very different than the fireworks display which does have a dramatic, common center to the expanding cloud of cinders. The balloon analogy, however, is not perfect, because as we watch the balloon, our vantage point is still within a preexisting larger arena which GR says never existed for the real universe.

The center of the Big Bang was not a point in space, but a point in time! It is a center, not in the fabric of the balloon, but outside it along the 4th dimension...time. We cannot see this point anywhere we look inside the space of our universe out towards the distant galaxies. You can't see time after all! We can only see it as we look back in time at the ancient images we get from the most distant objects we can observe. We see a greatly changed, early history of the universe in these images but no unique center to them in space.

Projectiles moving through space?
Sorry! Like spots glued to the surface of the balloon at eternally fixed latitude and longitude points, the galaxies remain where they are while space dilates between them with the passage of time.

If space is stretching like this, where do the brand new millions of cubic light years come from, from one moment to the next? The answer is that they have always been there. . . . It is a mystery why our consciousness insists on experiencing the universe one moment at a time, and that is why we end up with the paradox of where space comes from. There really is no paradox at all.

Space is not 'nothing' according to Einstein, it is merely another name for the gravitational field of the universe. Einstein once said, "Space-time does not claim existence on its own but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field". If you could experimentally turn-off gravity with a switch, space-time would vanish. This is the ultimate demolition experiment known to physics for which an environmental impact statement would most certainly have to be filed.

The gravitational field at one instant is wedded to itself in the next instant by the incessant quantum churnings of the myriad of individual particles that like bees in a swarm, make up the gravitational field itself. In this frothing tumult, the gravitational field is knit together, quantum by quantum, from perhaps even more elemental building blocks, and it is perhaps here that we will find the ultimate origin for the expansion of the universe and the magical stretching of space.

Was there a definite moment to the Big Bang?
Today's theory is that our universe emerged from an infinite density, zero-space 'Singularity' at Time Zero, but physicists now feel very strongly that this instant was smeared out by any number of quantum mechanical effects, so that we can never speak of a time before about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Just as Gertrude Stein once remarked about my hometown, Oakland, California that "There is no 'There' there", at 10^-43 seconds, nature may tell us that before the Big Bang, "There was no 'When' there" either. The moment dissolves away into some weird quantum fog, and as Steven Hawking speculates, time may actually become bent into a new dimension of space and no longer even definable in this state.

Something started the Big Bang!

At last we come to the most difficult issue in modern cosmology. Time itself may not have existed. How, then, do we speak or think about a condition, or process, that started the whole shebang if we are not even allowed to frame the event as "This happened first...then this...then kerpowie!"? This remains the essential mystery of the Big Bang which seems to doggedly transcend every mathematical description we can create to describe it.

I wrote this essay before seeing the new IMAX file at the Air and Space Museum 'Cosmic Journey", by far one of the nicest and most heroic movies of its kind I had ever seen. But of course it showed the Big Bang as a fireworks display. No matter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to accept the fact that the Big Bang was a spectacular moment in history. What is amazing is that the daring audacity of humans may have demystified some of it, and revealed a universe far stranger than any could have imagined."

Sten Odenwald
Published in the Washington Post

http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/bang.html
"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"

Postby graybear13 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:14 pm

That is interesting about big bang; it wasn't really a bang at all more of just an expansion. But expansion from what has always been the question. Now we have the Higgs field or ocean of Higgs particles/aether/ zero point energy field as a source for mass.

It seems like I took it on the chin for espousing the existence of aether a little while back.

In light of recent discoveries, science has to go back and begin to rethink quantum mechanics with aether as the source of mass.

I believe that you will find that gravity is defined, in the quantum, as the transition from 'zero point energy' to mass. The more gravity the more mass.

Transition from zero point energy to consciousness allows us to experience it.

regards gray

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
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"

Postby Savonarola » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:46 am

graybear13 wrote:Now we have the Higgs field or ocean of Higgs particles/aether/ zero point energy field as a source for mass.
First, you don't get to call things that which they are not. A Higgs field is not an "aether" as the word aether has been previously used in physics. We have known about zero point energy for some time now, and that concept is also not interchangeable with "Higgs field."
Second, you are equivocating when you refer to a Higgs field as a "source of mass." The Higgs boson alleges to explain how/why particles have a characteristic that we call mass, but it does not explain where that energy comes from.

Maybe kwlyon will be so kind as to add his understanding here.

graybear13 wrote:I believe that you will find that gravity is defined, in the quantum, as the transition from 'zero point energy' to mass. The more gravity the more mass.
The second statement is not dependent upon the first. We have evidence that your second statement is correct. Do you have evidence that your first statement here is correct?

graybear13 wrote:Transition from zero point energy to consciousness allows us to experience it.
I bet you don't have evidence for this, either. Really, you're just doing your best Deepak Chopra impression, attempting to link "mysterious" quantum lingo you don't understand to consciousness and higher meaning. A good schtick for random, scientifically illiterate rubes; not so successful on a forum populated by scientists and philosophers.

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"

Postby graybear13 » Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:20 am

Savonarola wrote:... quantum lingo you don't understand to consciousness and higher meaning. A good schtick for random, scientifically illiterate rubes;


Just because you are an expert on what science knows 'so far' doesn't give you exclusive claim to logical speculation about quantum gravity and aether. In fact, what science knows about quantum gravity is the square root of zilch and they have just now proven the existence of the 'God particle'. Do you have any proof that science can get from where they are now stuck, to the truth about quantum gravity and creation of mass without a new perspective/paradigm shift?

It seems that all you can do is argue about what to call the source of mass. I have called it 'stuff' for years, but then I'm just an unsophisticated hick.

The 'microwave background radiation' that was detected in 1965 (Bell lab horn antenna) is the resonance caused by 'stuff' condensing into mass. This, I postulate, is the beginning of gravity.

Who are you to judge what I do or do not understand? You should consider the fact that it is you who cannot understand quantum gravity and aether. Your ego won't let you admit that I see something with more clarity than you. From where I'm standing you look like a pompous city boy confused by your own self importance. :mrgreen: You ask "are you good without God" not for me to say but at least Christians recognize vanity as the devil's favorite sin. There is a reason for it being his favorite...if you have any goodness in you vanity takes away from it without your knowledge and makes you appear foolish.

regards gray

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
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"

Postby Savonarola » Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:05 am

graybear13 wrote:Just because you are an expert on what science knows 'so far' doesn't give you exclusive claim to logical speculation about quantum gravity and aether.
Correct! It does, however, give me more authority on the subject than somebody who has demonstrated nearly nonexistent understanding of these topics.
It is, of course, a fallacy to imply that because my statements aren't certain to be true, your statements must have equal likelihood of being true.

graybear13 wrote:Do you have any proof...
Science doesn't "prove" anything. If you don't know this, then you don't understand science.

graybear13 wrote:... that science can get from where they are now stuck, to the truth about quantum gravity and creation of mass without a new perspective/paradigm shift?
Do you have "proof" that science cannot get from current understanding to understanding gravity more completely? I didn't think so.
(I reject the implication left by your wording of "creation" of mass.)

graybear13 wrote:It seems that all you can do is argue about what to call the source of mass.
I'm sure it seems that way to you, but you have difficulty understanding English. I am saying that "that which causes certain particles to behave as if they have mass" and "that which causes matter to come from nothing" are not the same thing, but you are equivocating.

graybear13 wrote:I have called it 'stuff' for years
Then you haven't done anything but give it a name, and a name that is less useful. Remember, you repeatedly referred to SWDKWII many months ago as a stand-in for your Chopra-like pseudoscience blather. Same game you're playing here.

graybear13 wrote:This, I postulate, is the beginning of gravity.
Do you have any evidence to support your postulation?
... No, I said evidence, not speculation that includes words like "quantum" and "aether."

graybear13 wrote:Who are you to judge what I do or do not understand?
Someone who can read what you write.

graybear13 wrote:Your ego won't let you admit that I see something with more clarity than you.
Just like you saw -- with more clarity -- that "gravity vortexes" can produce infinite atomic energy? How, again, did that turn out for you?
Oh, nevermind. I remember now. Do you remember?

graybear13 wrote:From where I'm standing you look like a pompous city boy confused by your own self importance.
Yes, we know that you're standing in a place where you get to draw conclusions without sufficient evidence. Perhaps you should try stepping into what the rest of us call reality.

graybear13 wrote:You ask "are you good without God" not for me to say ...
Keep topics in their applicable threads, please.

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"

Postby graybear13 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:09 pm

Savonarola wrote:
graybear13 wrote:This, I postulate, is the beginning of gravity.
Do you have any evidence to support your postulation?


Evidence to support my postulation has been known for a long time and has been misconstrued since 1965 when it was discovered. The microwave background radiation (MBR). Since the big bang wasn't all encompassing and more of whisper than a bang the MBR cannot be an echo or remnant of such an event 13.6 billion years ago...more likely, when the elemental particles move into the 'entanglement' of mass we can hear the resonance of these intensely vibrating particles. We can see these elemental particles by using the LHC to smash protons together at such high temperatures and pressures they can be seen as the protons disintegrate. Now we have to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

It starts with elemental particles moving toward and condensing into mass. More mass = more gravity...so the beginning of quantum gravity is the initial 'entanglement' of elemental particles evidenced by MBR, CBR, discovery of Higgs particle, dark matter, and dark energy.

regards gray

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
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"

Postby Savonarola » Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:42 am

graybear13 wrote:
Savonarola wrote:
graybear13 wrote:This, I postulate, is the beginning of gravity.
Do you have any evidence to support your postulation?
It starts with elemental particles moving toward and condensing into mass. More mass = more gravity...so the beginning of quantum gravity is the initial 'entanglement' of elemental particles evidenced by MBR, CBR, discovery of Higgs particle, dark matter, and dark energy.

You cut off my quote. It read,
Savonarola wrote:Do you have any evidence to support your postulation?
... No, I said evidence, not speculation that includes words like "quantum" and "aether."
That's clearly a no. You don't even know what entanglement refers to, but you expect me to believe you know what you're talking about. You're just a Chopra-wannabe.

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"

Postby graybear13 » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:59 am

Savonarola wrote:
graybear13 wrote:... that science can get from where they are now stuck, to the truth about quantum gravity and creation of mass without a new perspective/paradigm shift?
Do you have "proof" that science cannot get from current understanding to understanding gravity more completely? I didn't think so.
(I reject the implication left by your wording of "creation" of mass.)


I'll answer your question even though you didn't answer mine. No, I never said they couldn't...What I said is 'science is barking up the wrong tree', chasing a wild goose that was brought on by some wrongheaded mathematics. Science is looking at creation backward in time.

"It also gave Stephen Hawking a moment of insight. By reversing the
direction of time, and running the event Penrose was describing backward,
Stephen realized that he a perfect model for the Big Bang. A singularity,
he argued, was what in Einstein's mathematics corresponded to Lemaitre"s
primeval atom; and it would explode outward with the Big Bang, reversing
the dynamics of a black hole and releasing matter as it evolved. Stephen and
Roger Penrose published a paper in 1970 which proved mathematically
that, if Einstein's mathematics were correct, a singularity had to result from
a black hole, and had to exist at the start of the universe. This produced a
crisis for physics: how could physics explain everything if its laws did not
apply at the very birth of the universe? But, in many physicist's minds, it
was also enough to seal the argument for the universe beginning with a Big
Bang. After all, the paper argued that if relativity as explained by Einstein is
correct--and all the evidence from observation seems to keep confirming
it--then the universe must have started with a Big Bang explosion out of a
singularity. The equations do not allow an alternative."

But the equations did not include quantum gravity, Higgs particle (elemental particle), dark matter or dark energy. It's time to reverse the direction of time again and run the Penrose event with the dynamics of a black hole, including the elemental particle.

The dynamics of a black hole will not create a singularity...it will create mass therefore quantum gravity.

regards gray

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
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"

Postby Savonarola » Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:23 am

graybear13 wrote:No, I never said they couldn't...
Now you are just lying. You said that science is "now stuck."

Your quote does nothing to support your point. Evidently, you lack the comprehension to understand that fact.

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"

Postby graybear13 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:53 pm

Savonarola wrote:Now you are just lying.


Now we are in the land were everything is backward, backward in time and meaning. The land of the liars.

It's good that the mathematical dynamics of creation is backward in time.

A singularity that contained all of the energy in the universe, existing at the beginning of time, is logical.

My assertions about quantum gravity are not understood because they illogical.

I don't think science can get to a unified theory of gravity.

I'm a fool and you are smarter than me.

I'm a wannabe...It's all about me.

yarg ssaymssik :twisted:

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8168
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"

Postby Dardedar » Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:34 pm

I don't think the grey one read the title of the thread carefully. It's actually entitled: "Interesting thoughts on the "Big Bang"
"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"

Postby graybear13 » Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:56 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZiROWO6iVs

Dr. Mechio Kaku, Multiverse Theory

This sounds about right to me if the umbilical cord and white hole are made of elemental particles, which are the source of the energy of creation.

Our bubble is an ocean of elemental particles in my view. I assert that the condensation of these elemental particles, from dark energy, the first measurable mass/gravity to dark matter (more concentrated elemental particles) to matter itself. A gazillion umbilical cords and white holes are inflating our bubble through gravity and the electronic organization of matter. Dr. Kaku's replacement of the singularity with a white hole for the source of a big bang only works in the micro. It can be observed in the macro by it's increasing gravity/mass but there was no macro big bang. This only means that the universe is a lot older than 13.7 billion years. An umbilical cord connected to the ocean of elemental particles inflates into a proton and 'that' is the genesis of a star. The incessant pull of gravity/mass on the ocean of elemental particles allow gravity to inflate the universe.

regards gray

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
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"

Postby Savonarola » Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:16 pm

graybear13 wrote:Our bubble is an ocean of elemental particles in my view. I assert that the condensation of these elemental particles, from dark energy, the first measurable mass/gravity to dark matter (more concentrated elemental particles) to matter itself. A gazillion umbilical cords and white holes are inflating our bubble through gravity and the electronic organization of matter.

Put this side-by-side with an unlabeled Chopra quote, and nobody would be able to tell the difference.

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8168
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"

Postby Dardedar » Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:03 am

Savonarola wrote:Put this side-by-side with an unlabeled Chopra quote, and nobody would be able to tell the difference.


And if one is too lazy to look one up, they can always lean on this Chopra quote generator: http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

"Each "quote" is generated from a list of words that can be found in Deepak Chopra's Twitter stream randomly stuck together in a sentence."

"Qualia fascinates total brightness"

"Intuition heals spontaneous joy"

"Good health relies on the barrier of possibilities"

"Your movement is only possible in an expression of experiences"

This is deep stuff.

Incidentally, watched "The Love Guru" the other day. Loved it.
"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"

Postby graybear13 » Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:39 pm

Darrel wrote:
Savonarola wrote:Put this side-by-side with an unlabeled Chopra quote, and nobody would be able to tell the difference.


And if one is too lazy to look one up, they can always lean on this Chopra quote generator: http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

"Each "quote" is generated from a list of words that can be found in Deepak Chopra's Twitter stream randomly stuck together in a sentence."

"Qualia fascinates total brightness"

"Intuition heals spontaneous joy"

"Good health relies on the barrier of possibilities"

"Your movement is only possible in an expression of experiences"

This is deep stuff.

Incidentally, watched "The Love Guru" the other day. Loved it.


Never heard of Chopra before you guys mentioned him. I formulate my inspiration on noetic science, in large part, from Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Institute of Noetic Sciences (Mind Shift Institute Edgar Mitchell). How the ocean of elementary particles becomes consciousness is an interesting subject but, I thought we were talking about the creation of the matters.

Now that it is logical to assume that an ocean of elemental particles exists, it is logical to assume a gazillion 'umbilical cords' (Dr. Kaku- multiverse) are pulling on this ocean and inflating into a gazillion baby universes. The MBR is the actual vibration caused by this, real time, inflation into atoms.

regards gray

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
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"

Postby Savonarola » Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:05 am

graybear13 wrote:Never heard of Chopra before you guys mentioned him.
Maybe you should look up some actual quotes from him. If you realize just how full of horseshit he is, maybe you'll realize just how full of horseshit you are.

graybear13 wrote:How the ocean of elementary particles becomes consciousness is an interesting subject but, I thought we were talking about the creation of the matters.
So you delve off into talking about oceans and consciousness, and then you pretend that we have somehow changed the subject. Right.

graybear13 wrote:Now that it is logical to assume that an ocean of elemental particles exists, it is logical to assume a gazillion 'umbilical cords' (Dr. Kaku- multiverse) are pulling on this ocean and inflating into a gazillion baby universes.
No, that does not follow. Kaku does not say this. He says that some scientists think that maybe there are umbilical cords. But Kaku is also notorious for going around and talking about all sorts of ideas in cosmology; he is a very enthusiastic speaker with a knack for good explanations, which makes him popular as an interviewee. He is less known for being a source of information that has been confirmed. In fact, even his word selection shows that his entire explanation is extremely speculatory.

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"

Postby graybear13 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:02 pm

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.

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"

Postby David Franks » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:15 pm

graybear13 wrote: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.

regards gray
If they can pull the Big Bang Theory out of their asses, why can't you pull anything interesting or worthwhile out of your ass? Is your ass so abysmally inferior to theirs?

If my ass were as incapable of extruding useful content as yours is, I wouldn't show it so much in public. I guess that's one of the myriad things that makes each of us an individual.
"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."

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"

Postby graybear13 » Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:55 am

David Franks wrote:
graybear13 wrote: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.

regards gray
If they can pull the Big Bang Theory out of their asses, why can't you pull anything interesting or worthwhile out of your ass? Is your ass so abysmally inferior to theirs?

If my ass were as incapable of extruding useful content as yours is, I wouldn't show it so much in public. I guess that's one of the myriad things that makes each of us an individual.


The only thing I pulled out of my ass was my head, it's an interesting and worthwhile thing to do. It's like being born again you should try it. :mrgreen:

Why is it not interesting that the big band theory of creation is giving way to a "new Copernican revolution?

I think you are just afraid to wake up.

This big change is coming and if I can shine a light on it, however small, that is worthwhile.

I'm just a messenger until I pull the 'Pyramid Vortex Generator Gravity Machine' out of my ass. "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Thomas Edison

If you want to be a meanspirited 'dick' and try to humiliate me there is nothing I can do about that except let you shame me into silence, ain't gonna happen! I am not afraid of your attempts to humiliate me so go ahead, have at it, "if you can't find nobody else help yourself to me" Jesus was a Capricorn, Kris Kristofferson

regards gray :D

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"

Postby David Franks » Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:15 am

graybear13 wrote:If you want to be a meanspirited 'dick'...
That would be, I take it, in contrast to your own passive-aggressive dickishness.
...and try to humiliate me there is nothing I can do about that except let you shame me into silence, ain't gonna happen! I am not afraid of your attempts to humiliate me so go ahead, have at it,...
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.
"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."


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest