On Oct 30, 1:42*pm, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:46:17 -0400, HVAC wrote:
On 10/30/2012 3:06 AM, Painius wrote:

There it is, folks...Painus just has a gut feeling that there was no big
bang. **** all the evidence to the contrary.

Yes, **** all the evidence that has been "fitted" to the Big Bang
theory, when it's suppost to be the other way around. *The theory
should be fitted to the evidence.

And all that evidence to which you point ****ingly, could be used to
explain other proposals of the nature of the Universe, as well. *Yet
you deny that and you accept an hypothesis that calls for a childish,
fairytale, once-upon-a-time beginning of the Universe.

What a hoot!

OK then. Here's your chance. Please lay out YOUR version of how the
universe began. I'll wait right here and promise not to interrupt you.

How magnanimous of you, Harlow!

The evidence definitely points to a magnificent, traumatic and
superbly catastrophic event that took place between 13 and 14 billion
years ago. *That evidence, of course, does also support the idea of a
"beginning" to the Universe; however, I consider that idea to go
counter to logic and common sense.

So, I'm very sorry, Harlow, because I cannot describe to you how the
Universe "began", because it didn't "begin". *It's always been here,
and it always will be.

No, it's not the static steady-state Universe of Fred Hoyle. *It's a
dynamic and dangerous Universe that has no "age". *The only reason
there are "creation myths" in religion AND in science is because
people find it impossible to imagine *anything* without a beginning.

Cancer cells are immortal - so is the Universe. *That's my take.

You're welcome.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Either this thread is dead or my watch has stopped."

An ageless universe is the most likely interpretation that allows all
the known laws of physics and best available science to coexist,
except for Harlow.