Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult?

Before you read this, please keep in mind that almost the entire
religious world, from many gun-toting, and bible thumping fundamentalist
Christians in the USA to hard core conservative religious thinkers in
Catholic or Protestant organizations throughout Europe have embraced the
Big Bang theory as explaining how God created the universe. How sad, to
see such blind devotion to an utterly unprovable and contradictory theory.

Perhaps all the scientists who call themselves cosmologists are just a
more advanced evolutionary species of homo sapiens merely seperated by
oh lets say a 1000 years from homo sapiens of the dark and middle ages.
In other words, it seems as if the scientific community of 'peer
reviewed' authoritarians are no better than club wielding cave men of
the dark ages. I can hear the cries now..burn him alive, burn him at
the stake, off with his head, for his madness and not knowing his place.
And anyone who dares to listen to such heresay as we live in a many
and one universe, and there are many dimensions, and faster than light
speed travel is possible..and gosh golly gee...mankind did NOT evolve
from apes.

Sigh.."peer reviewed academia still lives in the stone age.
---
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,
things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark
energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a
fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the
predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would
this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way
of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the
least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict
the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed,
because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now
more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature
and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on
Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes
contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.
Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big
bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the
light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the
universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years
younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative
predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The
successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to
retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of
adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of
Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding
the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model
both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These
and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of
the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation
of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the
redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even
predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the
big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not
explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising,
as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of
funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be
freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in
most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that
"science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent
are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they
have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those
who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged
right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So
discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy
distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This
reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free
scientific enquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology
are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources,
and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by
supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang
within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the
scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines
a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing
of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased
discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those
agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction
of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and
observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer
review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of
astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and
its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our
most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Initial signers:
(Institutions for identification only)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, Washington University (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics(retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India,France)
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

The scientific world hates debate on any subject they wish would go away.
For example the dumb arse who thought of evolution as in the descent of
Man, looks so utterly insane with his ridiculous 'evidence' that most
biologists hate the 'D' word when applied to their new theories. Darwin
is so dead now in biological studies...that only dumb arse dinosaurs
(who will bring the whole world into extinction with them too if the
world keeps listening to them) still argue on behalf of Darwin. The Big
Bang cosmology is doomed to go the same route...extinction.

The same can be said of UFO sightings. Dumb ass astronomers hate the
subject because they have never researched it and tend to believe
whatever the lying stupid ass government has said about it, in short for
the most part...dumb arse astronomers know as much about UFO's as they
do about Pyramids. Their education in such matters is no better than a
Disney cartoonish film meant to educate children in pre-school.

The same can be said about underwater megalithic sites discovered the
world over. Why no famous documentary beaming all over the world?
Because scientists are cult-sychophantic dumb arses who wouldnt know a
real discovery even if it bit them in the arse.

Buts that ok, like we in the know have said numerous times...we still
live in the dark ages, and no doubt the emperor has no clothes...and
apparently all those applauding call themselves scientists.

The scientific world hates debate on any subject they wish would go away.
For example the dumb arse who thought of evolution as in the descent of
Man, looks so utterly insane with his ridiculous 'evidence' that most
biologists hate the 'D' word when applied to their new theories. Darwin
is so dead now in biological studies...that only dumb arse dinosaurs
(who will bring the whole world into extinction with them too if the
world keeps listening to them) still argue on behalf of Darwin. The Big
Bang cosmology is doomed to go the same route...extinction.

The same can be said of UFO sightings. Dumb ass astronomers hate the
subject because they have never researched it and tend to believe
whatever the lying stupid ass government has said about it, in short for
the most part...dumb arse astronomers know as much about UFO's as they
do about Pyramids. Their education in such matters is no better than a
Disney cartoonish film meant to educate children in pre-school.

The same can be said about underwater megalithic sites discovered the
world over. Why no famous documentary beaming all over the world?
Because scientists are cult-sychophantic dumb arses who wouldnt know a
real discovery even if it bit them in the arse.

Buts that ok, like we in the know have said numerous times...we still
live in the dark ages, and no doubt the emperor has no clothes...and
apparently all those applauding call themselves scientists.

nightbat wrote

Yoda wrote:

Before you read this, please keep in mind that almost the entire
religious world, from many gun-toting, and bible thumping fundamentalist
Christians in the USA to hard core conservative religious thinkers in
Catholic or Protestant organizations throughout Europe have embraced the
Big Bang theory as explaining how God created the universe. How sad, to
see such blind devotion to an utterly unprovable and contradictory theory.

Perhaps all the scientists who call themselves cosmologists are just a
more advanced evolutionary species of homo sapiens merely seperated by
oh lets say a 1000 years from homo sapiens of the dark and middle ages.
In other words, it seems as if the scientific community of 'peer
reviewed' authoritarians are no better than club wielding cave men of
the dark ages. I can hear the cries now..burn him alive, burn him at
the stake, off with his head, for his madness and not knowing his place.
And anyone who dares to listen to such heresay as we live in a many
and one universe, and there are many dimensions, and faster than light
speed travel is possible..and gosh golly gee...mankind did NOT evolve
from apes.

Sigh.."peer reviewed academia still lives in the stone age.
---
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,
things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark
energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a
fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the
predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would
this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way
of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the
least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict
the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed,
because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now
more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature
and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on
Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes
contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.
Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big
bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the
light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the
universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years
younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative
predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The
successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to
retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of
adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of
Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding
the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model
both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These
and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of
the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation
of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the
redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even
predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the
big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not
explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising,
as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of
funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be
freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in
most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that
"science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent
are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they
have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those
who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged
right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So
discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy
distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This
reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free
scientific enquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology
are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources,
and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by
supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang
within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the
scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines
a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing
of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased
discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those
agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction
of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and
observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer
review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of
astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology. Even though professional astronomers and physicists who study astro dynamics are really cosmology researchers.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and
its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our
most accurate model of the history of the universe. Like the ( "Black
Comet" ) one.

Initial signers:
(Institutions for identification only)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, Washington University (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics(retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India,France)
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)
nightbat, French Physics Institute for Batty du Nuit, Lincoln College
(Costa Rica ) St. Francis College (Brooklyn NY), Hunter College (NY),
Bard College (NY) Croton-on-the-Hudson, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Research Center net following science fellow of interest (University of California) (New Mexico USA), Hawking no outlet and mathematical energy basis thorn in the side (England)

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...2Fworldview%2F

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...new_mexico.htm

nightbat

Is the term baloney a scientific acceptable one? Can space
really bang in a zero medium volume or create one without dice? If there
are more Guth theoretical universes does that mean we may owe more
taxes? Who's paying the light bill for all that perfect mood setting
star light? If we can locate our pets and car keys via GPS, why can't we
locate our folks before they lose their heads and zero in on all those
bad camel traders with issues? Save the Whales but who is going to save
humanity from itself? We need a hero not afraid to speak his profound
mind, bring back Spaceman.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote

Yoda wrote:

Before you read this, please keep in mind that almost the entire
religious world, from many gun-toting, and bible thumping fundamentalist
Christians in the USA to hard core conservative religious thinkers in
Catholic or Protestant organizations throughout Europe have embraced the
Big Bang theory as explaining how God created the universe. How sad, to
see such blind devotion to an utterly unprovable and contradictory theory.

Perhaps all the scientists who call themselves cosmologists are just a
more advanced evolutionary species of homo sapiens merely seperated by
oh lets say a 1000 years from homo sapiens of the dark and middle ages.
In other words, it seems as if the scientific community of 'peer
reviewed' authoritarians are no better than club wielding cave men of
the dark ages. I can hear the cries now..burn him alive, burn him at
the stake, off with his head, for his madness and not knowing his place.
And anyone who dares to listen to such heresay as we live in a many
and one universe, and there are many dimensions, and faster than light
speed travel is possible..and gosh golly gee...mankind did NOT evolve
from apes.

Sigh.."peer reviewed academia still lives in the stone age.
---
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,
things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark
energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a
fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the
predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would
this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way
of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the
least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict
the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed,
because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now
more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature
and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on
Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes
contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.
Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big
bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the
light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the
universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years
younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative
predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The
successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to
retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of
adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of
Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding
the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model
both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These
and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of
the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation
of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the
redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even
predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the
big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not
explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising,
as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of
funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be
freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in
most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that
"science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent
are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they
have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those
who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged
right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So
discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy
distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This
reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free
scientific enquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology
are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources,
and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by
supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang
within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the
scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines
a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing
of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased
discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those
agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction
of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and
observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer
review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of
astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology. Even though professional astronomers and physicists who study astro dynamics are really cosmology researchers.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and
its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our
most accurate model of the history of the universe. Like the ( "Black
Comet" ) one.

Initial signers:
(Institutions for identification only)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, Washington University (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics(retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India,France)
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)
nightbat, French Physics Institute for Batty du Nuit, Lincoln College
(Costa Rica ) St. Francis College (Brooklyn NY), Hunter College (NY),
Bard College (NY) Croton-on-the-Hudson, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Research Center net following science fellow of interest (University of California) (New Mexico USA), Hawking no outlet and mathematical energy basis thorn in the side (England)

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...2Fworldview%2F

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...new_mexico.htm

nightbat

Is the term baloney a scientific acceptable one? Can space
really bang in a zero medium volume or create one without dice? If there
are more Guth theoretical universes does that mean we may owe more
taxes? Who's paying the light bill for all that perfect mood setting
star light? If we can locate our pets and car keys via GPS, why can't we
locate our folks before they lose their heads and zero in on all those
bad camel traders with issues? Save the Whales but who is going to save
humanity from itself? We need a hero not afraid to speak his profound
mind, bring back Spaceman.


the nightbat

"nightbat" wrote in message ...
Is the term baloney a scientific acceptable one? Can space
really bang in a zero medium volume or create one without dice? If there
are more Guth theoretical universes does that mean we may owe more
taxes? Who's paying the light bill for all that perfect mood setting
star light? If we can locate our pets and car keys via GPS, why can't we
locate our folks before they lose their heads and zero in on all those
bad camel traders with issues? Save the Whales but who is going to save
humanity from itself? We need a hero not afraid to speak his profound
mind, bring back Spaceman.

Hmmm...
baloney is spelled bologna,
space without space is a joke,
one bang creating all, is a joke since there was no "reason for the bang".
Who the heck is Guth? (a new priest of science?)
Hydrogen and matter being burned constantly because of a giant "diesel" effects
and motion of the stars is what is really paying for the light bills.
Not all soldiers are carring thier keys or thier OnStar systems
and none of the camel traders are because your own camels come when called.
Maybe whales are going to save humanity...
Hero? No...
Realist, Yes.

"nightbat" wrote in message ...
Is the term baloney a scientific acceptable one? Can space
really bang in a zero medium volume or create one without dice? If there
are more Guth theoretical universes does that mean we may owe more
taxes? Who's paying the light bill for all that perfect mood setting
star light? If we can locate our pets and car keys via GPS, why can't we
locate our folks before they lose their heads and zero in on all those
bad camel traders with issues? Save the Whales but who is going to save
humanity from itself? We need a hero not afraid to speak his profound
mind, bring back Spaceman.

Hmmm...
baloney is spelled bologna,
space without space is a joke,
one bang creating all, is a joke since there was no "reason for the bang".
Who the heck is Guth? (a new priest of science?)
Hydrogen and matter being burned constantly because of a giant "diesel" effects
and motion of the stars is what is really paying for the light bills.
Not all soldiers are carring thier keys or thier OnStar systems
and none of the camel traders are because your own camels come when called.
Maybe whales are going to save humanity...
Hero? No...
Realist, Yes.

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
The scientific world hates debate on any subject they wish would go away.
For example the dumb arse who thought of evolution as in the descent of
Man, looks so utterly insane with his ridiculous 'evidence' that most
biologists hate the 'D' word when applied to their new theories. Darwin
is so dead now in biological studies...that only dumb arse dinosaurs
(who will bring the whole world into extinction with them too if the
world keeps listening to them) still argue on behalf of Darwin. The Big
Bang cosmology is doomed to go the same route...extinction.

Aww, poor baby. Doesn't like science and the way it progresses, because he
want's his favourite fantasies to be real.

You have credophilia, Yoda.


The same can be said of UFO sightings. Dumb ass astronomers hate the
subject because they have never researched it and tend to believe
whatever the lying stupid ass government has said about it, in short for
the most part...dumb arse astronomers know as much about UFO's as they
do about Pyramids.

Dumb assed kooks hate it that even an amateur astronomer knows more about
lights in the sky than true beleivers (TB) like "Yoda", and don't get
fooled.

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
The scientific world hates debate on any subject they wish would go away.
For example the dumb arse who thought of evolution as in the descent of
Man, looks so utterly insane with his ridiculous 'evidence' that most
biologists hate the 'D' word when applied to their new theories. Darwin
is so dead now in biological studies...that only dumb arse dinosaurs
(who will bring the whole world into extinction with them too if the
world keeps listening to them) still argue on behalf of Darwin. The Big
Bang cosmology is doomed to go the same route...extinction.

Aww, poor baby. Doesn't like science and the way it progresses, because he
want's his favourite fantasies to be real.

You have credophilia, Yoda.


The same can be said of UFO sightings. Dumb ass astronomers hate the
subject because they have never researched it and tend to believe
whatever the lying stupid ass government has said about it, in short for
the most part...dumb arse astronomers know as much about UFO's as they
do about Pyramids.

Dumb assed kooks hate it that even an amateur astronomer knows more about
lights in the sky than true beleivers (TB) like "Yoda", and don't get
fooled.

nightbat wrote

Spaceman wrote:

"nightbat" wrote in message ...
Is the term baloney a scientific acceptable one? Can space
really bang in a zero medium volume or create one without dice? If there
are more Guth theoretical universes does that mean we may owe more
taxes? Who's paying the light bill for all that perfect mood setting
star light? If we can locate our pets and car keys via GPS, why can't we
locate our folks before they lose their heads and zero in on all those
bad camel traders with issues? Save the Whales but who is going to save
humanity from itself? We need a hero not afraid to speak his profound
mind, bring back Spaceman.


Spaceman
Hmmm...
baloney is spelled bologna,

nightbat

Correct Spaceman and hello, and nothing compares to your
personal science realism. And as used and spelled by the rebel poster
Yoda, it apparently applies to common disenchantment with the standard
model. What we need is a common dialog to precise science lingo
translation spokesman to overcome the at times distrust of the
professional scientists and the interested common folk.

Spaceman
space without space is a joke,

nightbat

Space is space, joke or not, please commonly define it for the
masses.

Spaceman
one bang creating all, is a joke since there was no "reason for the bang".

nightbat

Yes, before you can bang two dice together, you apparently need
a director with a cause.

Spaceman
Who the heck is Guth? (a new priest of science?)

nightbat

One of Bert's book friends, brilliant in making up new
dimensions for hopefully closing the gravitational loop. He is
apparently aware of the affinity folks naturally have for music and
strings and therefore further applying the physics concept along those
lines to the BB model.

Spaceman
Hydrogen and matter being burned constantly because of a giant "diesel" effects
and motion of the stars is what is really paying for the light bills.

nightbat

A simple and sweet answer, but will all the truckers understand
it?

Spaceman
Not all soldiers are carring thier keys or thier OnStar systems
and none of the camel traders are because your own camels come when called.

nightbat

Sure, the camel drivers don't need them, and the soldiers forget
to carry or turn on theirs, of course, it makes sense.

Spaceman
Maybe whales are going to save humanity...

nightbat

Hmmmm, this is deep, so you're indicating and predicting that
man made whale farms will be the solution to the energy crises, wow, the
answer was right in front of us.

Spaceman
Hero? No...
Realist, Yes.


nightbat

You're much too humble Spaceman, for taking on the most astute
profound analytical and theoretical minds on sci.physics and other
science newsgroups. Yes, for you always manage to bring a breath of
fresh air and new twist to the forum. Any guy that is willing to take on
the heavy weight likes of Uncle Al, Varney, Mr. Green, Old Man, Bilge,
Hansen, Harris, Franz Heymann, etc., and go toe to toe with them and
keep his head up high, is historically noteworthy to say the least. A
true hero to those humble lesser mortals that try but don't understand a
thing the illuminati are talking about if it wasn't for your common down
to earth translation. Yes, a hero to the common folks in the truest
sense even if you may not be recognized as an original science posting
legend.

the nightbat