no it's not
I'm not trying to be ignorant, smart or combative here .. But.
I'm just going to say straight out here that Nowhere in your post do I hear or see any proof of conformation of the big bang theory. (??)
Again, I'm being honest here not degrading your post.... being smart.... being combative... argumentative blah blah
But literally all I read in your OP, to my perception of understanding as I read it, was that they used a machine to gauge radiation of sorts (in a
And that throughout your whole post all I heard over and over resonating in my head was that they based this all with a pre-conclusion in mind that
the Big Bang is indeed the truth of how our universe was created.
Seems biased if that is the right word to use.
I did not see them go through many variables or contants during this experiment/research. They did not rule out anything or take anything else into
consideration from what I seen based on JUST your post that I read.
Nowhere in your post of what you say NASA purportedly confirmed did I ever get the feeling that NASA, or yourself, were explaining this unbiasedly, as
in, taking into consideration possible disapproval of the Big Bang Theory any "DOUBT" or explanation why there would perhaps be any other probable
cause for the creation of our universe. Like all I read in your post was BIG BANG or NOTHING, PERIOD -----
Every good scientist (NASA or any other) knows that solid research, whether it be technology or otherwise, should always be done with the mindset to
try to prove or DISPROVE a theory, rather than just doing everything they can to make sure what they want to be true will be true. Visit all
possibilities and rule them out like a checklist method is a MUST. This is NOT what I See happening here - what I see is that they want the theory to
be the absolute confirmed theory so they MADE it that way............
Using a machine, Really.. I mean technology is great but the use of ONE machine and a relatively small group of minds coming to this conclusion
doesn't cut it for me and more than likely most other intelligent, questioning, inquisitive, rationally-minded individuals to be used as a legit,
Also, I want to be clear that nowhere in what I just said am I implying that I am anti-big bang or don't believe in it, I also am not saying I do for
sure either, I'm just making an honest observation of what you and your post said.
So yeah, This purported "confirmation" just isn't sitting right with me and doesn't cut it for me. There's too much missing; I see there's no
elaboration on their findings or other variables or methods being used to support these findings. The universe is complex and one machine and a few
people as a basis for claiming they KNOW how it was created to me does not qualify as confirmation. Claiming confirmation here based on what's been
said here is outright inappropriate for such a complex topic as this.
We're finding new stuff out about ourselves, our life and everything around us every day. Claiming definitive conformation is premature "at best."
Excuse me if my reply is not un-flawed as I typed it all out as I was thinking it.
edit on 3-4-2013 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)