View Single Post
  #10  
Old November 1st 03, 08:07 AM
david ford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST

Ed, what do you think of the main argument of:

The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pi...ba.gl.umbc.edu

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ed Conrad wrote:

The Big Bang, the Scientific Establishment's theory of the birth
of the universe, is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense
in another of its vain, arrogant attempts to display its omnscience.

Once again, the pseudoscientists are out in left field regarding
a realistic response to a monumental question, therefore pull
a ludicrous theory out of their hat

The fact is, theBig Bang has been reduced to shreds by just
one photograph, that of the "Hubble Deep Field."

http://www.edconrad.com/images/istherereally.jpg

And you can be sure, the Scientific Establishment very much regrets
that it was ever taken.

For years, the corupt Pseudoscientific Establishment has been jamming
gobs of gibberish down our throat but this one photograph has
certainly set them back on their heels, although it won't admit it..
You see, the mindboggling photo was taken long after their facetious
theory of the Big Bang was first proposed -- at a time that no one had
any idea of the unfathomable size and scope of the universe.

The manufacture of such pablum decades ago -- long before the "Deep
Field" photo -- could, indeed, have been accepted, with a grain of
salt as being, well, remotely possible. But certainly not afterward,
especially when it is fact, not fiction, that the scope and size of
our universe is even beyond anyone's wildest imagination .

To know for sure there is a stupendous array of galaxies in ALL
directions, far from what the best conventional telescopes previoulsy
had seen, presents even ANOTHER question that no scientist can
answer: Just how immense is our universe, and does it ever end?

That a Big Bang could've even been remotely responible for the
existence of our universe is sheer folly, and to promulgate such
fiction and fantasy is pseudoscientism at its best.

And, be assured, when the Hubble someday likewise focuses
on a teeny-weeny dark patch of sky as shown in the "Hubble Deep
Field" photo -- if the Pseudosscientific Establishment can't prevent
it from being taken - there will be a similiar scene of unfathomable
magnificience, probably more majestic galaxies than are in the
original "Deep Field" photo itself.

Those patheic pseudoscieniss keep forgetting the words of the
late, great Thomas Alva Edison:

"We don't know one-tenth of one percent about anything."