The Big Bang Never Happened

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

 

And the basis of his theory is based only on seen evidence also. In fact all we know of the universe is based off seen evidence.

Um, thank you for stating the obvious? And we do not "know" anything, we think based on the best information we have that something is true *but we are isolated to a short time in history and a small corner of the universe*. Just because we base our theories off of what we have observed it does not mean we see all there is.

Did the OP ask you to field questions for him?

What does that matter? Am I supposed to not seek dialogue simply because I did not author this thread?

reply to post by trace_the_truth


1) More "begging the question" fallacy.
2) Light gets dimmer as it travels.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

1) More "begging the question" fallacy.
2) Light gets dimmer as it travels.

You seem to be the OP's (irrational) bulldog...

I am not discussing a "begging the question" fallacy. I believe that you need to study your logic, sir...

I am discussing causality. We, as humans, know for a fact that if there are an infinite sources of light in an infinite area, then with infinite time, every where you look will end in light. It is very simple.

It's as if you are saying to me that I am begging the question of a potato to be boiled by placing it in boiling water!

You, my friend... ARE ABSURD!

As Edgar Allen Poe has said on the subject:

Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, like that displayed by the Galaxy –since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star. The only mode, therefore, in which, under such a state of affairs, we could comprehend the voids which our telescopes find in innumerable directions, would be by supposing the distance of the invisible background so immense that no ray from it has yet been able to reach us at all.

... and of course, he illustrates a universe so large (perhaps infinite in size) which can't possibly be infinite in time. This is compatible with the big bang theory due to the expansionary period and the speed of light.

You say light gets dimmer as it travels. That is of no concern to an infinite universe with infinite stars and infinite time because the photons are spreading out over an infinite area infinitely. In an infinite universe, every single photon from every single star has reached, and its successors are continuing to reach, every single point in the universe until one star in the line of site has died.. but even then there are infinite stars in that line of sight.

The big bang theory does not determine the Universe as finite nor does the myriad of proof against this imagined theory determine the Universe as infinite. Any theory supporting a finite or infinite Universe should not be confused with theories on "How" things work and "How" stuff moves in the Universe.

Infinite is without measure and boundless; contains no boundaries, edges or frames of reference to compare with. Distance is the comparison of point 'A' to point 'B' against a set standard rule (Meter) and time is comparing the motion between distances against a set standard (Earth's rotation). Removing all points of references removes the ability to measure and I would imagine this would eliminate any discernible shapes or forms. So maybe we exist in a finite Universe that has infinite possibilities.

I have difficulty grasping the concept of a single point of creation (a big bang) that is the origin of all energy, matter and motions. Furthermore the manner in which the big bang idea came about is beyond logic. it appears as if the goal has been to prove this idea by exploiting that which corroborates it and dismissing anything in contradiction, how anyone would consider this science is beyond me.

reply to post by trace_the_truth


Gee, more ad hom, wonder what I did save disagree and wish to discuss this to warrant these responses. Shall we kindly leave the subject of myself out of what is supposed to be a scientific conversation?

So Edgar Allen Poe *I do enjoy his literary works but that is neither here nor there* is a credible scientific source? And no, the scenario you describe would not be the case. You assume that light can push light into the visible spectrum creating what you claim. Remember distant stars are harder to see *read dimmer* than closer stars and whether or not space is infinite doesn't even factor in.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by trace_the_truth

 

Gee, more ad hom, wonder what I did save disagree and wish to discuss this to warrant these responses. Shall we kindly leave the subject of myself out of what is supposed to be a scientific conversation?

Your fall back on "ad hom" attacks only shows me that you have the propensity to live in the illusion that people are attacking YOU instead of your IDEA, so that you may feel that your idea is more worthwhile in spite of yourself.

It's sad, really. Pathetic.

... but how can we leave them when you make such an effort to magnify them?

So Edgar Allen Poe *I do enjoy his literary works but that is neither here nor there* is a credible scientific source?

And no, the scenario you describe would not be the case.

You concentrate on an anecdote? It shows your transparency.

You assume that light can push light into the visible spectrum creating what you claim. Remember distant stars are harder to see *read dimmer* than closer stars and whether or not space is infinite doesn't even factor in.

"You assume that light can push light into the visible spectrum"

lol. Do you understand anything about the electromagnetic spectrum?

"Dimmer" is not a scientific term. You are no scientist, that much is clear. Photons do not lose energy as they travel. Further objects appear dimmer because photons are dispersed. If the universe were infinite with infinite stars then dispersion would not even come into play for practicalities sake because the spectrum of dispersion would result into the infinite concentration of photons in any particular area.

I'm sorry. You are going to have to present me with someone more worthwhile in your next post to have me take you seriously. As of now, I am viewing you as a joke.

Using... science... to... prove... science wrong...
brain melting

but good thread!

reply to post by trace_the_truth


You seem to think I care what you think of me. Funny that, let's see how is comments to the effect that I am the OP's let's see "guard dog", comments about MY transparency attacking information? And what statement have I typed that magnified them pray tell? Calm down disagreeing with you is not calling you stupid. And it should also be noted that "winning" an argument does not make one right.

You concentrate on an anecdote? It shows your transparency.

Even more ad hom. No, you cite what Edgar Allen Poe asserts as proof for your statements. YOur statement was exactly thus:

As Edgar Allen Poe has said on the subject:

Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, like that displayed by the Galaxy –since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star. The only mode, therefore, in which, under such a state of affairs, we could comprehend the voids which our telescopes find in innumerable directions, would be by supposing the distance of the invisible background so immense that no ray from it has yet been able to reach us at all.

lol. Do you understand anything about the electromagnetic spectrum?

Yep. Not that I expect you to acknowledge that. Given your statements that would be very unrealistic of me even should you think so.

"Dimmer" is not a scientific term. You are no scientist, that much is clear.

Firstly, ad hom once again, not attacking me are you? I imagine this is where you claim to be a scientist right?

Photons do not lose energy as they travel.

About dang time you get to the information and drop the fluff. And by what observational information is this proven?

I'm sorry. You are going to have to present me with someone more worthwhile in your next post to have me take you seriously. As of now, I am viewing you as a joke.

Even more ad hom. Such rancor.... I await the inevitable flimsy justification.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

That is actually quite enough....

Any further posts about any other member, snide comments or off topic remarks will be removed..

Also the member may be warned...

This includes posts with on topic material folks..

If you include an insult, it will be removed.

Thank you

Semper

reply to post by Ridhya


Isn't that how advance in science is achieved?

I have heard about this red shift discrepancy recently but have not heard any ideas as to an alternative theory. Is the universe expanding or not? Even if we cannot rely on red shift data to gauge distance, then what is it's significance?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Ridhya

 

Isn't that how advance in science is achieved?

real science has always progressed through the inspection of itself. But these people don't support real science WITS. They advocate "relience". Some sort of haphazard hybrid between science and religion; where what they claim as true, is so, merely because they believe it.

in my honest and humble opinion, the "big bang", is an absurd notion.



reply to post by denursty

what exactly do you mean by "is the universe expanding?"

[edit on 7/4/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


It was a rhetorical question? We are in complete agreement though.

Trace the truth is actually correct in his reasoning.

I dont understand how someone is unable to grasp the logic he is presenting.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thehumbleone


Based on what? Projections of what happens over the course of travel of a photon over distances mankind has thus far never been able to traverse?

I understand how he arrives at that conclusion but that doesn't mean I don't have to agree with it.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Trace the truth is actually correct in his reasoning.

I dont understand how someone is unable to grasp the logic he is presenting.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

i'm sure everyone grasps what he is saying, but it does not make it valid.

"Being graspable does not remove something from the land of fiction"
-JPhish



[edit on 7/4/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Very interesting. Does your theory of an infinite age and size universe also have an explanation for the chemical composition of the universe?

The Age of the Chemical Elements

Age of the Universe

yes.

Galactic model of element formation
Lerner E, Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 17, Issue 2, Apr 1989 Page(s):259 - 263

It's simple logic and it makes perfect sense. What's there to argue about?

Its like a fish unable to grasp the concept of water because it is omnipresent and right in front of his eyes that he misses it.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

This is a good post, but the technical pages are much too arcane for the average reader. I hope those who have studied the subject and its terminology find all the references useful. I don't.

But what the post points out that seems quite valid is the tendency of science to get entrenched and inflexible. That's not working well for us. I think it bears looking into, because a lot rides on what science discovers over the next few years (maybe the next few months).

On the other hand, you're not going to get into questions of the ultimate origin of the universe without running into religious belief. Religion (especially the "occult") and science have been intertwined for a long time. I don't really expect that to change until such time as science is willing to fully embrace occult studies.

What I have been taught is that this current universe is roughly 76 trillion years old and has a lot of life left to it. There is evidence all around us that matter decays, but this is a very slow process. The universe didn't "explode" into existence, per this teaching. It was placed here, bit by bit, by entities that could be characterized as living, non-physical entities. They wanted a game and they created one.

This teaching does not contend that this universe is the first one to exist or the only one to exist. It's totally a matter of what is there in front of us to sense and observe. This teaching, then, is just a somewhat workable theory (at least in its own context). It is unlikely that we can ever expect much more than that.

I don't get the "if no big bang then no starting point" logic. There are a lot of other possible models that don't involve "bang" but do involve acts of creation. I'm not talking about religious teachings, just models.

I can understand science's fascination with this question, but I don't understand the practical necessity for an answer. We've survived a long time without knowing for sure, and I think we could survive a lot longer in that condition.

Science demands we assume no starting point if one is not readily apparent.

Religion should be left out of the equation. Religion is a belief structure.

We only want to deal with facts and theories that are falsifiable.

We could say God created the universe an hour ago and all our memories and the everything we think we know about the universe was implanted in our brains because he willed it.

While I suppose this is possible, its not scientific and doesn't teach us any more about our physical universe.

reply to post by thehumbleone


Perhaps you miss the point of what I said, we do not truly know if photons lose energy or not. We are not able to travel the distances required to prove or disprove any assertion to that effect.
Perhaps, what we classify as "red shift" that supposedly proves the expanding universe model is nothing of the sort but a dissapation of the elctromagnet radiation we call light over extremely long distances *to us*.