Taingorz

Asking for citations again? why? Some thinking is allowed, yes? Or do you only listen to the Higpriests of 'science'? Like einstein, hawking, maybe Bill Nye ...How ugly he is!!!! Man o man! Ah well he is no scientist of course, But well, Dawkins?

O do absolutely agree with you here that the Aether has to be broughyt back! Absolutely! The enormous stupid theories of relativity where used to let go of the Aether. O my , don't start on how stupid the relativity theory is! Citation? Gee, a lot of logical fallacies going on here!

Now, take e.g. the Red Shift. one can clearly see that that is no evidence at all for the big bang. And so it with all the so called 'evidence' there never was a big bang.

lol, yes you are funny. But nothing more.

It is not about standing up to the experts, You don't get it.

No, it isn't your field. Nor does it have too. You can think for yorself, yes? Do not trust blindly on 'experts' thay had a numerous time wrong in the past. Think for yourself, that would be some revolution! What is it then when people have a very different opinion about something, they are automatically called 'trolls"? My opinion is that it is done to keep the integrity of their belief system in tact. They can't handle independent thinkers , because they destroy their group think,

I agree about the big bang,I don't agree about what you wrote about einstein. His theories were deliberetely put out to mislead.

of course not, mate. The nuclear atom is a physical impossibilty. And btw who is "WE" and exactly what have they seen?

Why exactly? something I wrote?

Yes, I have studied physics at university level. And about the nuclear atom. nope, there IS no nuclear atom at all. But that is a whole other thread by itself.

Really? Personally I think they are very very bad at that! First they make extremely stupid theories. Of course those won't work and then they make up other nonsense, like Dark matter and strings and what have you to correct for their flawed theories. Sometimes it looks all very ridiculous. And really, sometimes I wonder how psychotic 'scientists' are when they believe in all those fairy tales. I asked earlier, like what evidence, e.g. the Red Shift is not good evidence, however it is used all the time with regards to the big bang bang.

here is more within were a 'scientist' says that 'something' came from 'nothing". The 'trick' is he makes 'nothing' 'something" It's a kind o f magic trick.

I agree 'scientists' don't know enough , but I will take this further. Most of what scientist think they know is hogwash. It would be more accurate if they said they have no clue. About gravity,, the big bang, relativity, cosmology, quantum bullocks, and so on and so forth. That would be a very realistic stand point, I agree,

about the big bang, do people here now really believe that a nothing or a very tiny tiny tiny point exploded (what the fuck exploded) into a complete universe? Come on! oh this one? "If this is the only thing you are asking, please tell me what you think a shadow is made of?" Just a silly question of no relevance at all. Why bother? I am talking here about the existence ( or non existence for that matter) about the big bang.

again, what question exactly?

yes I do, people here write that there were no scientists that said that 'something' came out of 'nothing" I showed evidence that they did. That those people can't 'grok' that is not my fault.

Oh my god, even if you put the evidence in front of their noses. they don't want to see it. and 'out of context'? Yeah right, seen it before if people try to get away with something. anything goes, eh?! But ok, because people here can't handle thse things let reverse it What do 'scientist' say or write about the origin of the Big Bang? Ok, sorry for that, but what question?

Well, people keep saying here that 'scientist' don't say that 'something' came out of 'nothing", despite the evidence I have showed. Well here is another one, another 'scientist" , Lawrance Krauss , even wrote a book with the title: Now I am curious if people stay saying that 'scientists' don't say the universe came from 'nothing"? if so, that will be very clearly a state of denial cause by cognitive dissonance. What evidence?

it's Hawking of course sorry I made a typo, O man, look above about the Ted talk!\ First i say the scientist say the universe was created out of nothing, then you people didn't agree, well ok. Then I was asked for 'scientists' who said or wrote that, then I came with the 'scientist' and even then it wasn't good enough. it's the only thing I am asking how 'something' can be created out of nothing? please, that's all I ask.

Well,l yes they DO say that the universe was created out of nothing. And when Hawkins says it you sy it is not about the Big Bang, who are you kidding? If even says so in the TED video, just take a look! Those people have NO idea what they are talking about. Something can not be created out of nothing.

No problem at all! no problem at all! no problem at all no problem Stephen hawking at his TED talk: "Under extreme conditions, general relativity and quantum theory allow time to behave like another dimension of space. This removes the distinction between time and space, and means the laws of evolution can also determine the initial state. The universe can spontaneously create itself out of nothing. " https://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_universe/transcript

Well, not really,. real scientist do say this! Or are you claiming these scientist don't understand the Big Bang, then I do agree. "Something' can not come from 'nothing" on this we agree, right?

well I really wonder how 'something' can come from 'nothing' as the Big Bang implies. of course something like that can't be done, but it is also against all physical laws, right? So how do they explain then that 'something' came from 'nothing"?