Split from Big Bang - doubts ?

[Taingorz]

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.

Edited August 3, 2018 by Taingorz

[studiot]

No, you introduced the subject of whether it is possible for anything to come from nothing in the most general terms - which it is.

So what is a shadow made of?

Or do you wish to deny the existence of shadows?

 

My personal take on the BB is irrelevant here, I am not a supporter I just think that like with Hoyle's theory (do you know what that was?) we are trying to infer too much from too little.

We just don't know enough.

[Taingorz]

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,

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

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!

I think the universe was sneezed out by the great a'tuin, but don't tell anyone...

[Endy0816]

39 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

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?

That is popular science.

The evidence we have only goes back so far in time, not to t=0. We don't know how it all started but what happened next.

CMB is a big peice. Old light that occured everywhere and we're still observing today.

It increased in size. It wasn't a regular explosion.

Mass/radius with radius increasing is easier way to visualize it imo. Things get spread apart.

[Taingorz]

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.

Edited August 3, 2018 by Taingorz

[geordief]

1 minute ago, Taingorz said:

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,

They do say that. But they make their best stab at explaining the evidence on the table. Unlike your good self who again didn't answer my question.

Go back and find it yourself.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

Most of what scientist think they know is hogwash.

Are you willing to listen to another point of view ?

(which is not directly opposed to yours)

Discussion proceeds so much better if you show some respect for the other party.

[DrP]

16 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

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.

No you didn't.  The Hawkin quote seemed too - but it was a quote presented on a poster like some inspiration quote that is trying to push an agenda and, probably taken out of context. Can you explain the physics behind what he was saying when he said that  'the universe could have created itself'? or whatever it was in that quote.

 

What about the particles that pop into existence in a quantum vacuum that we have evidence for?  Did they come from nothing?

Who cares anyway - it came from somewhere, nowhere or was always here - how could anyone know what happened?  They can't.

The big bang though has a lot of supporting evidence from what I have read - Don't ask me to explain it though as it isn't my field....  and clearly not yours! lol.

Just now, studiot said:

Are you willing to listen to another point of view ?

 

He clearly isn't.

 

[Taingorz]

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

make their best stab at explaining the evidence on the table. 

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.

7 minutes ago, DrP said:

The big bang though has a lot of supporting evidence from what I have read -

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.

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That old chestnut  generally people who say that don't seem to understand what the word evidence actually means.

1 minute ago, Taingorz said:

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.

LOL  guess your mistake (hint hypothesis).

 

[DrP]

15 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

. 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.

What did you make of J.J. Thompson's plumb pudding theory of the atom?  Would you say he was right or wrong?  

 

The whole 'History of the Atom' is a story of people being correct about their postulations and building the best model available to them at the time.  These models evolve over the centuries as our knowledge increases. JJ Thompson was correct in his model for the atom....  but that theory was enhanced and bought on by many other scientists throughout the decades since he postulated it. You clearly do not understand science....  did you study it anywhere?

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by DrP

[geordief]

21 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

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.

 

Not an answer to my question . Bye.

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, DrP said:

.... and building the best model available to them at the time.  

Yes, science is in a state of permanent flux or constant change. One can only say "At this point in time scientists think this or at that point in time they thought that".

[DrP]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, science is in a state of permanent flux or constant change. One can only say "At this point in time scientists think this or at that point in time they thought that".

yep - and in the future they wont look to the 20th century and say 'they thought the universe came out of nothing'

I forgot to add earlier also - popular science book titles do not make a scientific theory. I do not think we have a theory that says the universe came out of nothing. The big bang THEORY does not claim it and I don't think any other theories do.  People speculate about all sorts of things.

42 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

 First they make extremely stupid theories.

Which theory says that the universe came from nothing?  ...and don't quote book titles and poster misquotes - who's THEROY say it?  

[Moontanman]

On 8/2/2018 at 6:46 AM, Taingorz said:

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

Memes as evidence? Really? 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Taingorz said:

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?

So you critique a book you obviously haven't read by simply showing the title? 

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

yep - and in the future they wont look to the 20th century and say 'they thought the universe came out of nothing'

I forgot to add earlier also - popular science book titles do not make a scientific theory. I do not think we have a theory that says the universe came out of nothing. The big bang THEORY does not claim it and I don't think any other theories do.  People speculate about all sorts of things.

It's people reading what they want  into what's said. At the end of the day, if you can't do the math's, you can't get the full story. As is often said "People don't know what they don''t know" and what they do know, they think is the limit of what is known rather than the limit of what they know. It's an intractable problem that only comes through self-realisation of ones personal limits... you can't drill it into someone.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Taingorz said:

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.

You posts are so vapid they have been deemed not suitable for incorporation in the sum of human knowledge. PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD AND UNPLUG YOUR COMPUTER, pack it up and ship it back the manufacturer... 

13 minutes ago, David Hine said:

These arguments will rage until we have the wisdom and courage to condemn the fake 'big bang' hypothesis to the speculation bin. I would say it's the 'biggest blunder' to date in cosmology, infinitely greater than Einstein and the Cosmological Constant episode. That was quite understandable, given the circumstances then.

Supposedly intelligent people are now totally fooled by 'big bang', -it's the CURSE that will eventually destroy all scientific credibility if it continues unchecked, David

Can you offer a better explanation that explains all the data? 

[Taingorz]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

What did you make of J.J. Thompson's plumb pudding theory of the atom?  Would you say he was right or wrong?  

 

The whole 'History of the Atom' is a story of people being correct about their postulations and building the best model available to them at the time.  These models evolve over the centuries as our knowledge increases. JJ Thompson was correct in his model for the atom....  but that theory was enhanced and bought on by many other scientists throughout the decades since he postulated it. You clearly do not understand science....  did you study it anywhere?

 

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.

[DrP]

Just now, Taingorz said:

. And about the nuclear atom. nope, there IS no nuclear atom at all.

 

We can SEE IT with a microscope! (STM). We have much evidence that it exists.  

[Taingorz]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

 PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD AND UNPLUG YOUR COMPUTER, pack it up and ship it back the manufacturer... 

 

Why exactly? something I wrote?

Edited August 3, 2018 by Taingorz

[Moontanman]

Just now, Taingorz said:

Why exactly? something I wrote?

Indeed... 

[Taingorz]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

We can SEE IT with a microscope! (STM). We have much evidence that it exists.  

of course not, mate. The nuclear atom is a physical impossibilty.

And btw who is "WE" and exactly what have they seen?

[Taingorz]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

So what evidence do you have against it?  -  anytime I have seen it discussed here in the past the 'evidence' presented is usually laughed out of court or is purely speculative or just confused.  I must admit it isn't my field though.  I would imagine once we have further evidence the theory will change a little  - I can't see it changing much though and it won't involve an imagined super being creating it with a thought.

 

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!

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

The smell of troll is overpowering in this thread... 

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,