|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST
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." Ed Conrad http://www.edconrad.com Man as Old as Coal |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST
"Ed Conrad" wrote in message
... 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. Don't tell me ... You've found a rock that looks like Sir Fred Hoyle. Man as Dumb as Coal |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST
"John Zinni" wrote in news:8osob.3580
: "Ed Conrad" wrote in message ... 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. Don't tell me ... You've found a rock that looks like Sir Fred Hoyle. When did Hoyle get knighted? Hopefully it was before he tried his hand at sci-fi writing. He should have stuck to his astronomy lectures..... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 8:58:52 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote
(in message ): "John Zinni" wrote in news:8osob.3580 : "Ed Conrad" wrote in message ... 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. Don't tell me ... You've found a rock that looks like Sir Fred Hoyle. When did Hoyle get knighted? 1972. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle Hopefully it was before he tried his hand at sci-fi writing. Nope. About 15 years afterwards. He should have stuck to his astronomy lectures..... -- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST
Ed Conrad wrote in message . ..
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. snippage 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." Ed Conrad http://www.edconrad.com Man as Old as Coal Hmmm... So when people thought that the universe was static and infinite, they also didn't suspect the size and scope? How do you get bigger than infinite? And how is it any more fathomable than this 'infinte + x". And those pictures ALSO taken in which we have seen the galaxies moving apart, and weve seen the extreme UV (I think, its some kind of em freq) that is consistent with the BB, what about them? SO _all_ those pictures are wrong, and this one is right? as for calling US (or at least ME) a psuedo, who confirms specimens without any testing, that have been rejected by the smithsonian several times, many other scientists, and since you seem to think they all hate you (thats called paranoia by the way) they have also been rejected by the National Inquirer (or enquirer, whichever it is I dont care). This isnt really the most 'reputable' of sources. In fact Its less reputable than Fox (or Faux- I Iiked that) News is left. That gibberish (I like to hear myself talk. Waitaminit...) means that it isnt reputable at all. The very fact that you SENT it to them seriously shows some lack of intelligence. Maybe you should learn what is "real" and what is "fake", hell the Daily Show has more truthful news, and its intelligent. But really, stop whining about how your straw men and paranoia have proven us wrong. It hasnt. Its shown you to be the laughable fool you are. If youre as old as coal, why arent you dead? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST
In sci.astro 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. Just a minute, there Ed old boy. While I'm in total agreement that the Scientific Establishment's theory of the Big Bang birth of the universe is completely in error, I would hardly call it "pseudoscientific nonsense"! It simply arises directly and obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being due to a Doppler shift. And while there are many examples of establishment science being vain, arrogant, and attempting to show it's omniscience with "plausible" explanations for any anomalous data rather than making a serious attempt to get at the truth, I think your broad brush goes way too far. That makes you little better than them! -- Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST
In article , wrote:
In sci.astro 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. Just a minute, there Ed old boy. While I'm in total agreement that the Scientific Establishment's theory of the Big Bang birth of the universe is completely in error, I would hardly call it "pseudoscientific nonsense"! It simply arises directly and obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being due to a Doppler shift. To what should we ascribe it? Sunburn? Cosmic embarassment? It's believed to be due to redshift because (a) that fits the facts and (b) none of the alternatives do. Alan -- Defendit numerus |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST
In sci.astro Alan Morgan wrote:
It simply arises directly and obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being due to a Doppler shift. To what should we ascribe it? Sunburn? Cosmic embarassment? It's believed to be due to redshift because (a) that fits the facts and (b) none of the alternatives do. My, my. Just can't help yourself. Just have to be vain and arrogant! No wonder Ed feels like he does! :-) I think in your sentence above you really meant to say that it [redshift] is due to Doppler shift because (a) that fits the facts and (b) none of the alternatives do. Sure, that was apparently the case so far. But once string theory opened the possiblity of multidimensional reality, one needs to go back and re-think old views rather than simply make snide comments to defend traditional theories. Personally I haven't seen much evidence that the universe is expanding if one discards red shift data. I think this is why "tired light" theories are popular (though such light properties do not appear to have ever been measured). But then, my hypersphere theory hasn't been "proved" either. If it were, then why would I be discussing it here? bjacoby -- Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
om... wrote in message ... In sci.astro Alan Morgan wrote: It simply arises directly and obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being due to a Doppler shift. To what should we ascribe it? Sunburn? Cosmic embarassment? It's believed to be due to redshift because (a) that fits the facts and (b) none of the alternatives do. My, my. Just can't help yourself. Just have to be vain and arrogant! No wonder Ed feels like he does! :-) I think in your sentence above you really meant to say that it [redshift] is due to Doppler shift because (a) that fits the facts and (b) none of the alternatives do. Sure, that was apparently the case so far. But once string theory opened the possiblity of multidimensional reality, Err, you *do* know that according to string theory, the extra dimension are "curled up" (compactified) on the Planck scale, don't you? Precisely how does a 'dimension' physically 'curl up'? And how does it know when to stop curling? one needs to go back and re-think old views rather than simply make snide comments to defend traditional theories. Personally I haven't seen much evidence that the universe is expanding if one discards red shift data. What about the cooling of the CMBR? There is evidence that it was "hotter" in the past; see e.g. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz. "In addition, the temperature of the cosmic background can be measured in some very distant clouds that produce absorption lines in the spectra of quasars. The neutral carbon atoms in these clouds are excited to an excitation temperature that can be measured using line ratios. These excitation temperatures are upper limits to the CMB temperature and are shown as triangular data points at right." 2 specially-selected data points! Whose only advantage is that they "miss" the BB prediction. Sure, if you play with coarse enough "upper bounds" you can miss your target enough to claim that it isn't disproved. Then there's: "In some clouds corrections for other sources of excitation can be made, giving a direct measure of TCMB, shown as a round data point. This data agrees very well with the evolution expected in the Big Bang model: TCMB = To(1+z), which is shown as the red line in the figure." If you get to "correct" the data for unnamed and undefined processes, you can match anything. And then you plot 4 whole data points. Too bad Ned didn't bother with any references for any of these. I think this is why "tired light" theories are popular (though such light properties do not appear to have ever been measured). Why do you think that "tired light" theories are still popular? I know no cosmologist who still thinks that such theories are viable; do you? That's because you define a 'cosmologist' as someone who believes in the big bang. Have you ever read the following page? http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm As you well know*, Dr. Wright has already been shown to be either less than principled or less than competent in his 'disproofs' of theories in his webpages (and if the latter, he is also unwilling to correct known mis-statements). See: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com and http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com At least in Ned's anit-TBBNH thread, Ned referenced the opposing view. (He screwed it up, royally, but at least it was possible to check his statements.) In the 'tired light' page, there's not a single reference to an actual tired-light theory paper or book. Why don't you at least identify what *you* think is correct about Ned's page on tired light? - - - - - - * From your achingly quibbly defense of Ned's 'rewording' of opposing theories. At least someone did, since Ned wasn't willing to respond publicly or privately -- except a one-shot repeat in defense of French's travesty. -- greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas {remove planet for return e-mail} |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Popping The Big Bang | Jim Greenfield | Astronomy Misc | 701 | July 8th 07 05:40 PM |
Was the Big Bang an exploding Black Hole? | Val | Science | 0 | May 22nd 04 06:44 PM |
Most Distant X-Ray Jet Yet Discovered Provides Clues To Big Bang | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 17th 03 05:18 PM |
A dialogue between Mr. Big BANG and Mr. Steady STATE | Marcel Luttgens | Astronomy Misc | 12 | August 6th 03 06:15 AM |
Big bang question - Dumb perhaps | Graytown | History | 14 | August 3rd 03 09:50 PM |