All condensending remarks aside, I find when two differing opinions of the 'theory' collide. Makes for interesting reading.
what caused the big bang?, page 3
privacy
reply posted on 7-7-2003 @ 12:48 AM by FoxStriker
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
So Basically, you don't want to answer my question, when you say im not your professor or do your own research you don't answer anything, you just avoid the question at hand, and I do have valid arguements, you just got to look past your cockiness to see them.
If you don't want to answer the question just say so, don't bring up some bullsh it excuse about " I choose not to"
I did, just that RobertBurns got to them first and he basically answered those. Whats the point in me repeating what has to be said. He did add his own twist to the theory, *giving props to RobertBurns*
I know a lot of this is wrong because it contradicts its own research."
-...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..."
YOU bring in Supermassive Black Holes to try to help you in the last moment, its not going to happen. I happen to know that they are still working on that theory itself. I went to your website and saw that its outdated. I'll give you another there website that shows how much that theory is changing
www.cnn.com...
Such black holes are thought to be common in young galaxies, where the matter gobblers have plenty of material to satisfy their voracious appetites.
But astronomers presumed such dynamic black holes were rare in older galaxies, their supplies of gas and dust presumably depleted over the eons.
"This changes our view of galaxy clusters as the retirement homes for old and quiet black holes," astronomer Paul Martini said last week
Science, ever changing, you basically stated that a theory about black holes is now into play, Interesting, I see that after reading your website, the big bang was never mentioned, maybe thats because it was abandoned and a new theory has emerged.
I don't really remember saying that the Supermassive Black Hole theory was incorrect. Its the big bang that I got a problem with.
Ill leave you with this, If the Supermassive Black Hole theory is correct (The immense gravity of a giant black hole MIGHT trigger the gas to collapse in the first place. By churning up the gas around it, a giant black hole would trigger the birth of stars, planets and life itself).
Then the Big Bang theory is wrong, ( 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)
Only one theory can be right, there is no inbetween.
ONE AGAINST THE OTHER. Their both HYPOCRITICAL AND CONTRARY to each other
Thank you for proving MY POINT
Until we meet again
Peace
-------------------------------------------------------
So Basically, you don't want to answer my question, when you say im not your professor or do your own research you don't answer anything, you just avoid the question at hand, and I do have valid arguements, you just got to look past your cockiness to see them.
If you don't want to answer the question just say so, don't bring up some bullsh it excuse about " I choose not to"
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.
I did, just that RobertBurns got to them first and he basically answered those. Whats the point in me repeating what has to be said. He did add his own twist to the theory, *giving props to RobertBurns*
I know a lot of this is wrong because it contradicts its own research."
-...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..."
YOU bring in Supermassive Black Holes to try to help you in the last moment, its not going to happen. I happen to know that they are still working on that theory itself. I went to your website and saw that its outdated. I'll give you another there website that shows how much that theory is changing
www.cnn.com...
Such black holes are thought to be common in young galaxies, where the matter gobblers have plenty of material to satisfy their voracious appetites.
But astronomers presumed such dynamic black holes were rare in older galaxies, their supplies of gas and dust presumably depleted over the eons.
"This changes our view of galaxy clusters as the retirement homes for old and quiet black holes," astronomer Paul Martini said last week
Science, ever changing, you basically stated that a theory about black holes is now into play, Interesting, I see that after reading your website, the big bang was never mentioned, maybe thats because it was abandoned and a new theory has emerged.
I don't really remember saying that the Supermassive Black Hole theory was incorrect. Its the big bang that I got a problem with.
Ill leave you with this, If the Supermassive Black Hole theory is correct (The immense gravity of a giant black hole MIGHT trigger the gas to collapse in the first place. By churning up the gas around it, a giant black hole would trigger the birth of stars, planets and life itself).
Then the Big Bang theory is wrong, ( 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)
Only one theory can be right, there is no inbetween.
ONE AGAINST THE OTHER. Their both HYPOCRITICAL AND CONTRARY to each other
Thank you for proving MY POINT
Until we meet again
Peace
reply posted on 7-7-2003 @ 01:31 AM by Protector
Well, now that you've started trying, I guess I can refute more of your misconceptions.
"So Basically, you don't want to answer my question... and I do have valid arguements, you just got to look past your cockiness to see them."
You're right, if you don't present information with you "talk" then I don't want to answer. Since you are now using information, we can discuss this. Whether your arguments are valid or not have yet to be seen... let's hope they become more apparent.
I"f you don't want to answer the question just say so, don't bring up some bullsh it excuse about " I choose not to""
"I choose not to" is a good way of saying, "I don't want to answer the question," don't you think? Oh well, on to your arguments.
"I did, just that RobertBurns got to them first and he basically answered those. Whats the point in me repeating what has to be said. He did add his own twist to the theory, *giving props to RobertBurns*"
Robert Burns did not have a sound argument (true beliefs and right reasons for those who don't know what a sound argument is). His answers were far from correct and you should have realized that when I disproved his post shortly after. Anyway, we should deal with the stuff at hand.
"YOU bring in Supermassive Black Holes to try to help you in the last moment, its not going to happen."
Last moment? This is not a race. Supermassive Black Holes are becoming an important facet of astronomy. Yes I am going to bring them in, because if you actually read through my article you'd have read this:
"Exactly how our galaxy was created has mystified astronomers and physicists for years. Although there have been many theories, there's little evidence to explain how the gas in the early Universe condensed to form the galaxy we see today. Now scientists realise they've been missing a vital ingredient - a supermassive black hole. The immense gravity of a giant black hole might trigger the gas to collapse in the first place. By churning up the gas around it, a giant black hole would trigger the birth of stars, planets and life itself. Despite being the most destructive thing in the Universe, scientists now think our supermassive black hole could be crucial in creating the galaxy as we know it."
I believe you used the argument that we did not have evidence for such things as supermassive objects like stars and planets... I was just showing simple proof that refutes it... proof you also believe.
"I happen to know that they are still working on that theory itself. I went to your website and saw that its outdated. I'll give you another there website that shows how much that theory is changing"
It isn't changing. If you read the whole website and have actually been following the research, you'd realize that the supermassive blackholes have a lot of evidence for what their importance are in a galaxy (and its formation). The medium sized black holes were just further proof that supermassive black holes were developed using a logical method (black holes consuming other black holes and matter to become larger).
"But astronomers presumed such dynamic black holes were rare in older galaxies, their supplies of gas and dust presumably depleted over the eons."
Well, then those astronomers are idiots. The longer you give them to feed, the longer they will feed. The black hole isn't going to decrease in size just because their is less for it to gobble on... it just isn't going to get that much bigger.
"This changes our view of galaxy clusters as the retirement homes for old and quiet black holes," astronomer Paul Martini said last week"
Well, before we approach that, let's look at what you didn't post from that article:
"In another cosmic search with unforeseen results, scientists using the Chandra X-ray Observatory in space and the Carnegie telescope in Chile detected six times more active supermassive black holes than expected in a cluster of aging galaxies. "
Yes, older galaxies have more supermassive black holes because they've had more time to feed. Galaxies have so much matter from birth that even the old ones still have enough matter to support a number of supermassive black holes. That doesn't seem odd to me, does it to you? If anything, that comes with the territory of the original idea that they existed.
"Science, ever changing, you basically stated that a theory about black holes is now into play"
Absolutely. This is necessary astronomy for a Big Bang theory.
"I see that after reading your website, the big bang was never mentioned, maybe thats because it was abandoned and a new theory has emerged."
The website presents evidence that refutes your previous argument. I don't care if it says BIG BANG by name, the counterargument just proves the original argument wrong. There is no new theory, there is only the basic findings of astronomy.
"I don't really remember saying that the Supermassive Black Hole theory was incorrect. Its the big bang that I got a problem with."
Right... we're on the same page... you like supermassive black holes, but not the Big Bang.
"Ill leave you with this, If the Supermassive Black Hole theory is correct ... Then the Big Bang theory is wrong"
Why's that?
"Only one theory can be right, there is no inbetween."
Since when? Theories are often combined to create a better working theory. What do you think the Big Bang theory is? Do you think it is still the exact same thing it was in 1927? No. I've already explained that. It is a dynamic theory with a lot of information behind it. Today it has more support than ever.
"ONE AGAINST THE OTHER. Their both HYPOCRITICAL AND CONTRARY to each other"
What is? Supermassive black holes forming galaxies is something that happens after a big bang and still allows for the expansion we see today. Are you still not seeing that? Have you never seen the timeline for the Big Bang?
"Thank you for proving MY POINT"
Ok, and what point was that?
Well, to give you a bit more proof, here is another website through NASA that does link supermassive black holes with the Big Bang:
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Unless you also believe that you are smarter than the High Energy Astronomer at NASA, I suggest you find yet another angle with which to argue your futile viewpoints from.
"-- Michael Loewenstein and Amy Fredericks for "Ask a High-Energy Astronomer"" ... the astronomer's names, just incase you thought I was kidding.
"So Basically, you don't want to answer my question... and I do have valid arguements, you just got to look past your cockiness to see them."
You're right, if you don't present information with you "talk" then I don't want to answer. Since you are now using information, we can discuss this. Whether your arguments are valid or not have yet to be seen... let's hope they become more apparent.
I"f you don't want to answer the question just say so, don't bring up some bullsh it excuse about " I choose not to""
"I choose not to" is a good way of saying, "I don't want to answer the question," don't you think? Oh well, on to your arguments.
"I did, just that RobertBurns got to them first and he basically answered those. Whats the point in me repeating what has to be said. He did add his own twist to the theory, *giving props to RobertBurns*"
Robert Burns did not have a sound argument (true beliefs and right reasons for those who don't know what a sound argument is). His answers were far from correct and you should have realized that when I disproved his post shortly after. Anyway, we should deal with the stuff at hand.
"YOU bring in Supermassive Black Holes to try to help you in the last moment, its not going to happen."
Last moment? This is not a race. Supermassive Black Holes are becoming an important facet of astronomy. Yes I am going to bring them in, because if you actually read through my article you'd have read this:
"Exactly how our galaxy was created has mystified astronomers and physicists for years. Although there have been many theories, there's little evidence to explain how the gas in the early Universe condensed to form the galaxy we see today. Now scientists realise they've been missing a vital ingredient - a supermassive black hole. The immense gravity of a giant black hole might trigger the gas to collapse in the first place. By churning up the gas around it, a giant black hole would trigger the birth of stars, planets and life itself. Despite being the most destructive thing in the Universe, scientists now think our supermassive black hole could be crucial in creating the galaxy as we know it."
I believe you used the argument that we did not have evidence for such things as supermassive objects like stars and planets... I was just showing simple proof that refutes it... proof you also believe.
"I happen to know that they are still working on that theory itself. I went to your website and saw that its outdated. I'll give you another there website that shows how much that theory is changing"
It isn't changing. If you read the whole website and have actually been following the research, you'd realize that the supermassive blackholes have a lot of evidence for what their importance are in a galaxy (and its formation). The medium sized black holes were just further proof that supermassive black holes were developed using a logical method (black holes consuming other black holes and matter to become larger).
"But astronomers presumed such dynamic black holes were rare in older galaxies, their supplies of gas and dust presumably depleted over the eons."
Well, then those astronomers are idiots. The longer you give them to feed, the longer they will feed. The black hole isn't going to decrease in size just because their is less for it to gobble on... it just isn't going to get that much bigger.
"This changes our view of galaxy clusters as the retirement homes for old and quiet black holes," astronomer Paul Martini said last week"
Well, before we approach that, let's look at what you didn't post from that article:
"In another cosmic search with unforeseen results, scientists using the Chandra X-ray Observatory in space and the Carnegie telescope in Chile detected six times more active supermassive black holes than expected in a cluster of aging galaxies. "
Yes, older galaxies have more supermassive black holes because they've had more time to feed. Galaxies have so much matter from birth that even the old ones still have enough matter to support a number of supermassive black holes. That doesn't seem odd to me, does it to you? If anything, that comes with the territory of the original idea that they existed.
"Science, ever changing, you basically stated that a theory about black holes is now into play"
Absolutely. This is necessary astronomy for a Big Bang theory.
"I see that after reading your website, the big bang was never mentioned, maybe thats because it was abandoned and a new theory has emerged."
The website presents evidence that refutes your previous argument. I don't care if it says BIG BANG by name, the counterargument just proves the original argument wrong. There is no new theory, there is only the basic findings of astronomy.
"I don't really remember saying that the Supermassive Black Hole theory was incorrect. Its the big bang that I got a problem with."
Right... we're on the same page... you like supermassive black holes, but not the Big Bang.
"Ill leave you with this, If the Supermassive Black Hole theory is correct ... Then the Big Bang theory is wrong"
Why's that?
"Only one theory can be right, there is no inbetween."
Since when? Theories are often combined to create a better working theory. What do you think the Big Bang theory is? Do you think it is still the exact same thing it was in 1927? No. I've already explained that. It is a dynamic theory with a lot of information behind it. Today it has more support than ever.
"ONE AGAINST THE OTHER. Their both HYPOCRITICAL AND CONTRARY to each other"
What is? Supermassive black holes forming galaxies is something that happens after a big bang and still allows for the expansion we see today. Are you still not seeing that? Have you never seen the timeline for the Big Bang?
"Thank you for proving MY POINT"
Ok, and what point was that?
Well, to give you a bit more proof, here is another website through NASA that does link supermassive black holes with the Big Bang:
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Unless you also believe that you are smarter than the High Energy Astronomer at NASA, I suggest you find yet another angle with which to argue your futile viewpoints from.
"-- Michael Loewenstein and Amy Fredericks for "Ask a High-Energy Astronomer"" ... the astronomer's names, just incase you thought I was kidding.
reply posted on 7-7-2003 @ 06:42 AM by Maddas
Protector, after much research I have found some documentation on Time Theories by none other then Proffessor FoxStriker. Here's a link to his
informative thesis (theory).
Fox Strikers most likely theory involving time.
Clearly a major or doctorate in therotical physics is needed to understand this heavy theory.
Only one question from this lay man. How does a person exist here as well as in a Black hole.
Only you here are educated enough to answer this.
Protectors posting gets the
from me.
As to the stuff that existed before the big bang, wasn't this the quark that that guy Kip thought of, that actually make up particle. And arent they not actually matter as such but a type of 'wave' energy, hence the entropy theory of the occurance of the big bang. Sorry just thinking this up on the fly. So I might be wrong. No doubt I will be told, might go now and research it.
Not bad in its simplicity, I think for a builder. Sorry no post or undergradurate studies here.
[Edited on 7-7-2003 by Maddas]
[Edited on 7-7-2003 by Maddas]
Fox Strikers most likely theory involving time.
Clearly a major or doctorate in therotical physics is needed to understand this heavy theory.
Only one question from this lay man. How does a person exist here as well as in a Black hole.
Only you here are educated enough to answer this.
Protectors posting gets the
from me. As to the stuff that existed before the big bang, wasn't this the quark that that guy Kip thought of, that actually make up particle. And arent they not actually matter as such but a type of 'wave' energy, hence the entropy theory of the occurance of the big bang. Sorry just thinking this up on the fly. So I might be wrong. No doubt I will be told, might go now and research it.
Not bad in its simplicity, I think for a builder. Sorry no post or undergradurate studies here.
[Edited on 7-7-2003 by Maddas]
[Edited on 7-7-2003 by Maddas]
The mystery of 100+ mpg cars, and the disappearance & deaths of men behind it
Posted 12 days ago with 101 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 101 member flags
Scientists able to talk to and teach dolphins sentences - Dolphins share a universal language.
Posted 9 days ago with 92 member flags
Posted 9 days ago with 92 member flags
Pirate Bay to Allow Real-Object Downloads. The Real Reason for SOPA, IMO.
Posted 12 days ago with 74 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 74 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Wrong weather ? Mini Ice Age started? Pole shift started? or Haarp ..
Fragile Earth, Posted 1 minutes ago
Fragile Earth, Posted 1 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Proponents of Gold Standard May Be Violent Extremists; Report ALL Suspicious Activity To the FBI
Global Meltdown, Posted 16 hours ago, 22 flags
Global Meltdown, Posted 16 hours ago, 22 flags
The Most Beautiful Video I Have Ever Seen In My Life!! Please Watch
Links & Other Resources, Posted 12 hours ago, 19 flags
Links & Other Resources, Posted 12 hours ago, 19 flags
Interfax: Iran Capable Of Striking Us Forces Anywhere In The World If Attacked By The Us- Iranian Am
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 17 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 17 flags
42,000-year-old paintings : 'The oldest work of art ever' discovered
Ancient & Lost Civilizations, Posted 8 hours ago, 17 flags
Ancient & Lost Civilizations, Posted 8 hours ago, 17 flags
The New Hyper-Speed Hard Drives... over 1TB per Second Write Speed!
Science & Technology, Posted 15 hours ago, 13 flags
Science & Technology, Posted 15 hours ago, 13 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Missouri teen girl gets 'life' for killing 9yr girl to 'find out what it felt like'...
Other Current Events, Posted 6 hours ago, 72 replies
Other Current Events, Posted 6 hours ago, 72 replies
Anti-Bullying campaign - Right or Wrong?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 8 hours ago, 58 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 8 hours ago, 58 replies
Interfax: Iran Capable Of Striking Us Forces Anywhere In The World If Attacked By The Us- Iranian Am
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 53 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 53 replies
Disc shaped metallic flying object above the clouds - Study case....
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 11 hours ago, 52 replies
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 11 hours ago, 52 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.197 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.197 seconds
