Painius should (but won't) understand "the Big Bang theory" (Lambda⋅CDM). 

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:43:44 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:

}]
Painius should (but won't) understand "the Big Bang theory" (Lambda?CDM).
He just won't; doesn't want to, I assume.

"Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite¹ and perfect.
She consumes fuel (EXergy); so, virtually², She's "alive".
[ ¹: Certainly not limited to biblical times/places.
²: in a notional sort of way, like a map, not real. ]

Speaking of God, you belong to tribes/religions of verious sizes.
Had you no "tribe", you'd have no "religion"; they are one and the same.

Randomness is naught but ignorance; so, intrinsically¹, there is no God,
and nature is at once "nothing" ( 4?D, changeless and choiceless )
and everything ( excluding nothing ).
[ ¹: in reality, despite appearances ]

Humanity labors to breathe, eat, drink and breed.
Nature has hard?wired us this way, it wasn't our doing.
Our "objective" has been fixed by nature, not invented.

Speaking of "objectives", the one word mantra/question, "Target?",
clears away horrid/debilitating/random thoughts.

« Mass?Energy = Space?Time », they are one and the same.
Gravity is "EXergy", energy that can do work;
net net (all things considered), it's forever being consumed away.

"Dark Matter" is UNSEEN MASS, "Dark Energy" is EXERGY DEPLETION,
and the start of the Big Bang is just the cosmic horizon,
similar to the event horizon of an ideal black hole.

unLike nature, science is finite; it has a horizon, a limit,
to wit: 13.75 giga?years ago and 46.5 * 2 giga?light?years wide.

I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off". And "before" which has no meaning. It's
just stupid - royally, unintuitively, and "religiously" stupid.

The Big Bang is a creation myth of science.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

Painius wrote:

I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off".

I certainly don't understand how anybody in their right mind would even
remotely accept that there is a first "land", an initial "point" in the
Atlantic Ocean called Land's End, after which all of Great Britain just
sort of "takes off".

--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:07:38 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:

Painius wrote:

I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off".

I certainly don't understand how anybody in their right mind would even
remotely accept that there is a first "land", an initial "point" in the
Atlantic Ocean called Land's End, after which all of Great Britain just
sort of "takes off".

I thought Land's End is a clothing company. lol

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"UseNet does not change; we change. [tinw]"

On 10/24/2012 6:32 AM, Painius wrote:

I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off". And "before" which has no meaning. It's
just stupid - royally, unintuitively, and "religiously" stupid.


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
















--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:32:38 -0400, HVAC wrote:

On 10/24/2012 6:32 AM, Painius wrote:

I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off". And "before" which has no meaning. It's
just stupid - royally, unintuitively, and "religiously" stupid.


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!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

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.












--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

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."

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.

On 10/30/2012 4:42 PM, Painius wrote:

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.


Let me interrupt you right here.. Your 'common sense' counts exactly the
same to science as does god and ether. In other words NONE.


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.



That's a very nice, religious viewpoint.



No, it's not the static steady-state Universe of Fred Hoyle. It's a
dynamic and dangerous Universe that has no "age".



So all the observations to date are incorrect? How is it that only YOU
are in on this great paradigm shift in physics?



The only reason
there are "creation myths" in religion AND in science is because
people find it impossible to imagine *anything* without a beginning.



Crap-Ola.




Cancer cells are immortal - so is the Universe.



Hogwash.


--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

}]
The start of the big bang is just the cosmic horizon,
similar to the event horizon of a black hole, where time (virtually) stops.
Stephen Hawking's latest Book/TVâ‹…Series, "Grand Design", talks about it.

I say "virtually", because there's no such thing as a TRUE black hole.

With distance, the clock gets super, super slow,
( redâ‹…shifted, from our vantage point, out of the gravity well ),
yet nowhere does it truly stop.