"Actually I saw your site and it was the first on yahoo search, don't give me your bulls h it."
My site was a simple site for other people to see where the theory came from. It had no argument purpose other than simple facts. Your site was a
sight that presented an argument... a poor one at that. My bull# was meant to be simple, yours was meant to be evidence... that's the difference.
"You may call me naive, but I do see in colors, and I can see you as a smart a s s that has excepted what he sees in front of him, but doesn't
bother to understand the complexity of how much is wrong."
So why don't you attempt to explain at least one thing that is wrong. Stop calling me a smart ass and start backing your own ass up. Simple as
that. Again, I don't want to do the research for you on this. I often spend a couple hours a day just keeping up with modern research on science
"Humans and apes are less than 1% in difference with DNA."
Yes, and we are about 4% different than mice. What's your point. Genetic coding is extremely complex and 1% is tens of thousands, if not millions
of permeations different... hence why we are so different with such a small difference in DNA.
"What the hell does that say about your theory, 60% correct, you can only dictate what you think is right, but you can't prove that its right."
I choose not to. I'm not a middle man and I'm not your professor, nor do I even think you have earned my respect so that I would want go through
years of back issues of magazines and through popular books on the subject just so you can go, "It's wrong!" I'm not wasting my time... frankly,
the idea of the Big Bang is old and has been covered to great lengths for anyone to start researching on their own.
"I have really hoped that YOU would have presented some arguements other, than "you don't understand" and "your naive"."
I did, but you skipped right over those in my first few posts. I don't want a bitch fest with you, so I keep it simple and say it how it is. If you
want to go back and research the information I gave you, then you'll see it is real science. Choice is yours.
"But I'm not the one thats dillusional on a subject that has more than 50% wrong. To say that 60% is correct is to be premature. I know a lot of
this is wrong because it contradicts its own research."
"I know all about the study of the big bang, I find it hilarious that you call me a skeptic, if I know the theory inside and out."
Any proof at all?
"I see more problems in the big than answers and you ask for research fine. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of
the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows
where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there."
Wow, proof. What's wrong with calling the source of the Big Bang a "cosmic egg?" If you want to get into the "source" argument, you could try
to argue God, a previous universe, quantum particle creation (a natural phenomena), or a slue of other lesser known hypothesis. The Big Bang theory
is hardly where it came from, it is more along the lines of multiple steps the the universe shows that it is expanding from a centralized location and
is still expanding. That is the heart of the Big Bang theory.
"No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events
would eventually yield to credible explanations. But now a cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all -- the Big Bang theory."
Actually we have the black hole gravitational theory with very strong evidence; you can find a special on this on the Discovery Channel, even. We
have red shift showing continued expansion. We have the latest readings of acceleration of galaxies (expanding faster). There is no cruel fate, it
is continually be expanded and proven correct. I think I've seen one study that disproved part of the classic view of the Big Bang, but I never said
the theory was absolutely perfect, just close. The newer versions are excellent and that is why it is taught in millions of schools today.
"Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars
on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth. Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of
Pennsylvania, states that "This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory. " Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it
still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars."
Thank you for proving my point. Read this:
The physicist mentioned
"The theory proposes that, in each cycle, the universe refills with hot, dense matter and radiation, which begins a period of expansion and cooling
like the one of the standard big bang picture. After 14 billion years, the expansion of the universe accelerates, as astronomers have recently
observed. After trillions of years, the matter and radiation are almost completely dissipated and the expansion stalls. An energy field that pervades
the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle."
That is just a mix of Big Bang... notice it says, "which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard big bang
picture.".... and Oscillating Universe theory. The Big Bang should not be thought of as opposing Oscillating Universe theory, in fact, it supports
it and is a requirement for it.
"If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish
they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few
degrees Kelvin. ... Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most
certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth."
Yes, this flaw has been overcome quite some time ago with the understanding of Supermassive Black Holes. The mathematics of the Big Bang actually
allows for these black holes but many physicists use to deny their existence (including Einstein who proved them) because they were so outrageous.
But going on:
"That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was
perfectly smooth. ...Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies
and great voids in space. Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in
certain directions than in others..."
Again, black holes cause what we see as lumpy. The radiation is still at the mercy of gravity, as is expansion from the Big Bang, and thus the
curvature of spacetime causes what this report thinks is proof against the Big Bang, which is not the case anymore.
"No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers
have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big
That is completely inaccurate. Again, supermassive black holes were apparently not considered in this article, but the old version did not have an
explanation for why the supermassive structures did form... that does mean the evidence wasn't out there... just that we had not found it.
"In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies."
Began TO REPLACE THE BIG BANG THEORY."
No need for that anymore, is there?
If you don't believe my claims of supermassive black holes, I will provide proof sponsored by Thomas Learning:
"I don't blame you for thinking your theory was correct, even though its obvious you didn't read the last website I put, even though I read
See, it was old information. At one time that was a valid counter argument, but today it is old news...
And you thought I couldn't hold my own
"Its just that your to hard headed for your own good."
Yeah, the truth makes you that seem that way.
"Unfortunetely, I was not once like you, I will never be like you, I look at the facts before I say something that I might regret or acknowledge that
Well, let's see if you learned something today... tell me that website was bad and that admit that supermassive blackholes lend to the Big Bang
theory, proving that website wrong, and then admit that the physicist also supports the Big Bang theory in accordance with the oscillating universe
theory. Admit to that and I'll admit that you acknowledge that you are wrong.
My final blow to you will be an article from BBC, probably the world's most well known news agency. Please read it carefully so you can see that my
information is backed up by credible sources. Thanks: