A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 31st 03, 12:41 PM
Ed Conrad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 31st 03, 01:15 PM
John Zinni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 31st 03, 02:58 PM
Mitchell Holman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 31st 03, 03:22 PM
Patrick James
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 31st 03, 05:45 PM
fencingsax
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 31st 03, 06:56 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 31st 03, 07:24 PM
Alan Morgan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 31st 03, 08:50 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 03, 12:16 PM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST

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?


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.


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?

Have you ever read the following page?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm


But then, my hypersphere theory hasn't been "proved" either.


Oh, nice, another (apparenly) layperson with an alternative theory to
the Big Bang (who, as usual, doesn't know that the red shift isn't
claimed to be due to the Doppler effect).

Does your theory explain all the observations? What about the
following
one, for example?
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0005006

BTW, theories are never proved in science, didn't you know that?


If it were, then why would I be discussing it here?


To convince other people?


Bye,
Bjoern

  #10  
Old November 1st 03, 08:12 PM
greywolf42
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.