Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 3,223
- Location
- Stoke-on-Trent
God won't allow this to happen.
The universe will completely die in..
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
What do you mean "not proven"?
The BBT is the most ideal model that fits what's being observed the most. Refinements to the scientific theory are always being made, formulas crunched and refined again and peer reviewed. It's not just idle guess work! A whole bunch of scientific theories go handing hand, where one is missing something, the other fills the void. Like how the BBT reasons that our Universe came from nothing, an infinitely dense single point in the void, but the membrane universe theory builds on this as does the 4D star collapsing in another Universe, spawning our universe.
It's all a lot to take in
There is no proof that the big bang theory is correct. There is just conjecture. The expanding universe theory is also not proven. Galaxies could simply be moving through the universe, which i think they are.
These ideas of the big bang, pangea theory and expanding universe are all consistent with religious superstition and this is why they have been accepted by the mainstream.
It has been proven that the earth and other planets are increasing in size or growing. This explains how we see different size planets and stars. The idea the everything in the universe appeared out of nothing in its current form is childish at best.
Well that's settled then, everyone just stop thinking, just go home, nothing to see here then...
Serious response; it's a scientific theory and it's based on assumptions, whilst assumed to be correct, if it comes to light these assumptions are wrong, the theory becomes falsified, until then, we generally accept the theory, but it doesn't mean we should NOT question it, it definitely does not make it a fact. How do you suppose we make progress scientifically if we don't ask these questions and investigate other explanations? How many new theories were readily accepted by the majority of scientists throughout history?
It's a quite dry and inconsequential research topic to study, and probably has been offered funding from the numerous and wealthy advocates of big bang theory.
"Science progresses one funeral at a time." -- Max Planck
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
What research? show me.
I don't care that people have been wasting their life times studying theories that are simply incorrect. That is how science works, they get it wrong. The problem comes when they refuse to accept alternative theories because they are so hung up and dependent on existing theories that they refuse to consider them, then it is no longer science, but religion.
Science has always been that way and it is no different in this day and age. I think it is even worse these days with the "consensus" and peer reviewed industry that claims to be the official voice of truth.
Reminds me of this recent article. "Science has taken a turn towards darkness" Wrong it has never moved on from the witch hunts and heresy of the past.
http://www.collective-evolution.com...-the-truth-about-the-pharmaceutical-industry/
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.” – Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime editor-in-chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ) (source)
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. (source)
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Look at the global warming/pollution debacle. Mainstream science is fraudulent for the large part, pushing an agenda over the truth.
The same can found in many different areas of science, medicine, geology, climate studies and so on.
I see, you're one of those people
Re: Peer reviews. Peer reviews happen so as we (human astronomers and cosmologists around the globe) can come to a satisfactory level of understanding. Those reviews only take place once the person or persons have established that it is sound enough to be submitted, which only happens once they have come up with a model, tested it through observation and data gathering, examined the results and finally built the model to be submitted.
As new technologies come about and instruments get more powerful, those previously reviewed models get revised with the new data. Science isn't about "official word", it's about observing, documenting, learning and revising once new information comes to light. I can't see any hidden agenda here like you're claiming.
What is your hidden agenda?!
Re: Peer reviews. Peer reviews happen so as we (human astronomers and cosmologists around the globe) can come to a satisfactory level of understanding. Those reviews only take place once the person or persons have established that it is sound enough to be submitted, which only happens once they have come up with a model, tested it through observation and data gathering, examined the results and finally built the model to be submitted.
As new technologies come about and instruments get more powerful, those previously reviewed models get revised with the new data. Science isn't about "official word", it's about observing, documenting, learning and revising once new information comes to light. I can't see any hidden agenda here like you're claiming.
What is your hidden agenda?!
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
When Louis Pasteur came out with his germ theory of disease he was ridiculed. If he was alive today and came out with his theory today, people would call him a conspiracy theorists and pseudo scientists. These days if you question the germ theory of disease you are treated just like Louis Pasteur was 100s of years ago. How far have we realy come? Not very far at all and i think it is even worse these days.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
The Pangea theory is incorrect and so is the big bang. I know this because of the evidence that supports the growing/expanding earth theory .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ&list=PLOdOXoiGTICLdHklMhj9Al8G-1ZLXGEP2
Watch all the short videos in this series and you can see that pangea is a complete joke.
This theory does not contradict plate techtonics it only states that there is no subduction of the plates, only spreading at the rifts. The new mantle at the rifts turns in to new surface area and thus the earth increases in size. On a smaller size earth, all the continents fit together. This was actually the mainstream theory over 100 years ago. When a german geologists created a model of the earth and came to the conclusion that on a smaller planet the continents fit together.
The real debate should not be about pangea vs growing planet theory. It should be about where does the extra mass come from and how are planets and moons growing/increasing in size.
No pangea = no big bang = religions are all wrong.
Have to watch out for all the religious mis information on this topic, because the religious know that this is the final nail in the coffin, they are trying to incorporate this theory in to their crazy ideas. So you find on youtube young earth creationists claiming that the growing planet theory is consistent with their crazy ideas. Obviously they are doing that because they know it proves religion wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ&list=PLOdOXoiGTICLdHklMhj9Al8G-1ZLXGEP2
Watch all the short videos in this series and you can see that pangea is a complete joke.
This theory does not contradict plate techtonics it only states that there is no subduction of the plates, only spreading at the rifts. The new mantle at the rifts turns in to new surface area and thus the earth increases in size. On a smaller size earth, all the continents fit together. This was actually the mainstream theory over 100 years ago. When a german geologists created a model of the earth and came to the conclusion that on a smaller planet the continents fit together.
The real debate should not be about pangea vs growing planet theory. It should be about where does the extra mass come from and how are planets and moons growing/increasing in size.
No pangea = no big bang = religions are all wrong.
Have to watch out for all the religious mis information on this topic, because the religious know that this is the final nail in the coffin, they are trying to incorporate this theory in to their crazy ideas. So you find on youtube young earth creationists claiming that the growing planet theory is consistent with their crazy ideas. Obviously they are doing that because they know it proves religion wrong.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,196
I watched it. Nice programme, nothing original or ground breaking but nicely put together if you havn't heard it all already.
doesn't work like that. It requires an awful lot of energy to come together to make even miniscule amounts of matter (E=mc2, c2 in particular is a very, very large number) and since the universe is expanding it gets less likely every second.
Entropic principle.
You're making the assumption that everything has to have a purpose. Does a stone have a purpose? Or a rock? Or did it just come to be, like the universe? Or us for that matter.
America has so many nutjobs doesn't it, from Creationists to pseudo science prophets who believe the earth is actually expanding, from sponteneous creation of matter out of thin air presumably. Amazing.
doesn't work like that. It requires an awful lot of energy to come together to make even miniscule amounts of matter (E=mc2, c2 in particular is a very, very large number) and since the universe is expanding it gets less likely every second.
Entropic principle.
You're making the assumption that everything has to have a purpose. Does a stone have a purpose? Or a rock? Or did it just come to be, like the universe? Or us for that matter.
Tin foil hats anyone...
Love these peeps that dispute scientific facts because it "doesn't feel right"
America has so many nutjobs doesn't it, from Creationists to pseudo science prophets who believe the earth is actually expanding, from sponteneous creation of matter out of thin air presumably. Amazing.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 4,906
Meh I'll be toast before then.
But seriously, it is a crazy thing to think about, everything ending.
But seriously, it is a crazy thing to think about, everything ending.
There is enough evidence through observation to extrapolate a theory backwards in time to nano seconds after the big bang to support what we are seeing now. The current evidence is that the galaxy is expanding and therefore at some point must have been at a singularity if you follow their reverse paths in time. There are also other pointers like the cosmic background radiation.
I think you will find most of the scientific community agree that this is the most plausible theory at the moment. Note that science is a fluid thing where observations and theories change over time to fit what we see.
If the galaxies are simply moving then why is it galaxies that are further away are redshifted more(and thus moving away from us faster) and why is it that these far away galaxies all happen to be moving away from us, not towards us? From these observations its quite reasonable to assume that the universe is expanding and at some time in the past it must have been much smaller than it is today. Galaxies do move relative to each other outside of this expansion, but the velocities at which they do this are nothing compared to the apparent speeds they appear to be moving away from us due to the expansion. The more distant galaxies have redshifts that correspond to many times the speed of light, so unless we happen to have gotten something fundamental wrong these galaxies cannot simply be moving through the universe at such high speeds.
I dont think this is the case with redshifts creating speeds faster than the speed of light. Maybe you are mixing the speed of light and the change in frequency (red/blue shift) due to an object moving away from us - the speed of the light reaching us remains constant whilst the change in frequency can indicate its relative motion to us viewing that light
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Not necessarily. Even if it is proven that our galaxy is expanding, that does not prove that it came from a singularity. It simply means that it is expanding. It could have started out with a single sun and over time grew and grew and expanded further. All these ideas are basically based on premises that have never actually been proven. They take these (incorrect) premises as given and then extrapolate.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Different galaxies could be moving at different speeds in different directions across different axis on the 3d plane.
New interview with Neal Adams I have not seen (creator of batman and superman)
Last edited: