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

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 4:55 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


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.


Oh look, Painus....How cute! Goth is now your official rump swab.
















--
"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 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.

On Oct 30, 4:09Â*pm, Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:
}]
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.


I agree.

Double-A

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Double-A
wrote:

On Oct 30, 4:09*pm, Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:
}]
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/TV?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,
( red?shifted, from our vantage point, out of the gravity well ),
yet nowhere does it truly stop.

I agree.

It might be just that phenomenon, and not the Doppler effect, nor any
enigmatic relativistic effect, that explains the faraway redshifts of
galaxies!

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