The Big Bang Never Happened, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 66 times

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 04:06 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by mnemeth1

This is MAJORLY off topic but it's all beliefs. Whether you believe in the Plasma model or the Big Bang or creationism. It's just that some take their beliefs religiously.

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 04:07 AM by JPhish

Originally posted by thehumbleone
It's simple logic and it makes perfect sense.

oversimplified logic maybe . . . perfect sense?

What's there to argue about?

Everything . . .

If he consents to being inspected, then i will explicate my qualms with his stance.

[edit on 7/4/2009 by JPhish]

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 05:51 AM by symmetricAvenger

reply to post by tribewilder

yeah your living it

infinity is the effect of one being alive

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 05:57 AM by symmetricAvenger

ok.. were do i start. lol

there was a big bang... but not as in BOOM from nothing..

The reason is the universe is a question. a big one.. in fact its a physical representation of how your brain works.

reasons for dimensions ? just another question.. well at least the function of one.

that is why you can not get to grips with the question, your never meant to know it but your an answer to it.

Your mind has no shape

nor does the universe

one of the same thing

Infinity is because you are alive that is all it is

Its a question reflecting one

you ask questions every day its how you work

from chaos comes order

You are both logic and chaos

Body and mind
Yin yang

Lesson over for today

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:07 AM by spy66

reply to post by symmetricAvenger

If there was a big bang as you say there was it must have been infinite BIG. And we cant observe more then a fraction of a fraction. If even that much lol.

Something made energy into plasma and matter but must it have to be a Big bang that did it.
What grounds do we have to say this. We have never made any matter from pure energy by blowing it up.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:14 AM by symmetricAvenger

reply to post by spy66

infinity is only here because you are.

there are as many universes as they are questions

do not worry about matter and energy as they are one of the same thing

like life and death

both are needed in order for it to all work

logic

if you can accept it and have humility of just being here to ask what you do..

you will be a better person for it...

for the gift was life and your ability to ask in the first place

we did not make the universe.. we came at the same time it was made

when someone asks you how old you are...tell them

I am as old as the universe

freaks em out more so because its true ; )

kinda relates to this topic www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4-7-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:32 AM by badw0lf

Can someone cliffs note this with a tada at the end so I can get it?

I find multiple post revelations like this both fascinating BUT infuriating as Im such a nonce...

oO

Whats the rub, whats the deal, wheres the gem?!?

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:42 AM by symmetricAvenger

reply to post by badw0lf

you are the gem

thats the rubb

well thats the short version to was there a big bang..

no bang.. just created

bang is a human word for expansion of something..well..

its very primitive to use this word i agree.. but it does what it says on the tin

the more your brain expands "knowledge" is kinda like how the universe works

it gets bigger the more we understand it

symmetry

pattens

shapes

beautiful i think

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:55 AM by Teknikal

If the universe is 13 billion years old as Scientists claim with the big bang theory what I want to know is how come we can see nearly that far in any direction (10billion light years or so I believe and that's only as far as we can detect).

Now thats a gap of about 20 Billion light years between observable glalaxys and bear in mind we are looking far into the past and it seems extremely unlikely we'd be right at the centre of the Universe.

How do scientists explain these whole Galaxys travelling at what must be at least the speed of light given the time frame of the big bang?

I'm skeptical of the big bang if it isn't obvious this is just one of many things that bothers me about it.

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:58 AM by Centurionx

Originally posted by KarlG
I'm reading this in the morning... and I've got one word for you:

HEADACHE.

Meanwhile, while I recover, here's what I want to ask:

Are you Christian and do you believe that God created the universe, then?

Or are you a fair, unbiased, unreligious scientist who has done his research and think there are loopholes the BBT does not cover, including the redshift and Doppler effects, which I, incidentally, have studied too? Do you factor in the research done on dark matter, which helps support the idea that the universe is being "pushed away" by the expanding nature of dark particles and antimatter in the blackness of space?

Dark matter is, essentially, miniscule, hyper-particulate form of plasma that creates additional gravitational effects that can widen the orbits of heavenly bodies and thus, push them further. It's not been fully proven yet (there are experiments currently working on that like super deep underground, last I read) but you can observe its effects on how light is distorted around planets due to the concentration of said matter.

Or...

Do you just want to, like so many of the people that I have come across on this site, disprove evolution and BBT JUST for the sake of saying God created all that we know?

That's all I've got to say on this topic.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by KarlG]

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:59 AM by andrewh7

Of course there was no big bang. God created the Universe in seven days.....kidding. Got ya!

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 07:00 AM by NWRHINO

The most difficult part of the big bang theory(BBT) is the premise that; before the bang there was nothing, so nothing exploded into something.

The entirety of the BBT resides in Einstein / Newtonian physics, with the very obvious exception of the big band part.

The BBT begins with either an inter - dimensional or divine shift of time and space curving into matter. However the mechanism of theory no longer accepts multi dimensional or intelligent design concepts beyond the actual event that the BBT is named after, namely the "Big Bang' part

This double speak and twisted logic is usually reserved for earth bound religions of pure faith.

The BBT is neither a sound or logical argument.

RED SHIFTS

What if: Red Shifts can be defined as IR(infrared) noise, or noise that is generated out side the visible frequency. These frequencies bleed into the visible spectrum(like cross talk) which then causes the red shift ?

Once you can accept that there is a working universe out side our perception(limited by our 5 senses and scientific instruments)

Then you can accept the infinite possible that is the universe

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 07:10 AM by mnemeth1

reply to post by NWRHINO

That is correct.

The BBT is Fiat Lux.

I find the whole notion disturbing. Not the least because a priest was the guy to come up with it. Not that I have anything against priests who want to be scientists, it just seems that such a person would have an agenda.

I believe red shifts are caused by optical correlations and scattering in plasma.

There is a large body of work to support this. We can actually produce red shifts in a lab through these mechanisms.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 07:36 AM by symmetricAvenger

reply to post by Centurionx

hahahah now that was funny haha

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 08:09 AM by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by trace_the_truth

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

[

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.

As do all of us who have spent the 4 years in undergrad, 3 more in post-grad and doctoral, and an other 5 in post-doc, actually studying and doing the science. It is much more difficult to actally do a Fourier transform analysis of the data than to cut and paste it and other discredited contrarian ravings into a psuedoscientific screed, Because a parrot can learn to mimic to word "quark", doesn't make the parrot a quantum physicist.
But, dear poster, these contrarian quacks do serve a purpose. They can cause those who are not incapable of, or too intrllectually lazy to, actually understand fundamental principles of science to ask questions that need to be asked. Like, "Now why is it, actually, that the LHC won't make destructive black holes?"
Let them continue to believe , apparently like the OP, in the Aristotelian belief that the celestial masses move because there are invisible angels up there pushing them along. Or that the true value of pi is exactly 3.0000 because the bible says so. Truly rail only when they attempt to educate our children in these myths.
They actually should be commended for the time and effort they put in. For while ignorance is a natural state for man, ignorance takes true committment.
There was a big bang. For those who will expend the effort to listen, you can still hear it in the backgroundwave microwave radiation.

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 08:13 AM by spy66

reply to post by symmetricAvenger

I thought that matter Is energy combined by pressure and mechanic's.

If matter ain't energy combined together then what is matter really made up by ?

I also think space is so big that it is the closest we could ever imagine infinite to be. And if the universe of space is X big so does the Big bang have to be.

But how can space create a X size Big bang?

Energy can never exceed the pressure of its surrounding space unless it is isolated and a foreign force or power is applied. It wont do it all on its own in free space.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 08:18 AM by symmetricAvenger

reply to post by spy66

well matter is a combination of engery on a lower level

don't forget its only a description of physical reality and how it relates to us..

the underlying property of matter is energy... that is why you cant destroy it.. because they are both the samething..

when they say matter can not be destroyed it only changes..its correct but not in form only levels of zooming in and out?

if you understand?

its like looking at something under a magnifying glass.. matter = reality as we know it

energy is the proponent of matter

you cant have one without the other!

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 08:24 AM by spy66

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by spy66

well matter is a combination of engery on a lower level

don't forget its only a description of physical reality and how it relates to us..

the underlying property of matter is energy... that is why you cant destroy it.. because they are both the samething..

when they say matter can not be destroyed it only changes..its correct but not in form only levels of zooming in and out?

if you understand?

its like looking at something under a magnifying glass.. matter = reality as we know it

energy is the proponent of matter

you cant have one without the other!

Yes i know this. And i also know that a finite matter and energy wont go back to what it used to be ever. Matter and energy is finite within a specific time frame of changes. It always becomes something else by changing all the time. Meaning it always becomes a new finite infinitely.

I have a question:

Can light go on for ever with light speed even though it reflects of different objects?
Or will it slow down and become something else then light over time?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 08:43 AM by Yandros

What are the chances. I just started reading this book like 12 hours before I read this thread.

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 08:47 AM by mnemeth1

reply to post by 4nsicphd

I don't think there was enough condescension in your tone.

Seriously.

I see your good at talking down to people and not so good at presenting evidence.

As for the CMB, Lets go over a few facts shall we?

Lets start with the apparent structure of large scale voids. Hmmm think there is a problem here?

Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot
Lawrence Rudnick, Shea Brown, Liliya R. Williams Astrophys.J.671:40-44,2007

But hey, lets not leave out the fact that steady state predicted the CMB with a far greater accuracy than BBT theorists, all the back in 1896

The Temperature of Space
C.H. Guillame 1896

We also have predictions of the background radiation made by plasma cosmologists that explain the observed CMB with far fewer assumptions and better matching.

Prediction of the submillimeter spectrum of the cosmic backgroundradiation by a plasma model
Lerner E, Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990 Page(s):43 - 48

Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium
Lerner E, Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 207, Number 1 / September, 1993

Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents
W. Peter and A. Peratt, Laser and Particle Beams, vol. 6, part 3, pp. 493-501, 1988

Hey but I'm not done! Lets look at some other problems for the BB theorists, like the fact that the CDM model has been blown up a hundred times over.

A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: results and cosmological implications.
A. Kashlinsky1, F. Atrio-Barandela2, D. Kocevski3, H. Ebeling4 Ap.J. (Letters), in press. 20 Oct issue (Vol. 686)