#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Bang
The universe and everything that we now are started from a single point in space. It had no size at all. It was not even there. And then it all somehow exploded. Why? No scientist has ever been able to explain how or why.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Bang
On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:
The universe and everything that we now are started from a single point in space. It had no size at all. It was not even there. And then it all somehow exploded. Why? No scientist has ever been able to explain how or why. Of course. Science is supposed to be based on measurements. How could you measure something that is unmeasurably small? Good reason to consider a different theory. Double-A |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Bang
On Monday, January 22, 2018 Double-A wrote:
On Monday, January 22, 2018 Mark Earnest wrote: The universe and everything that we now are started from a single point in space. It had no size at all. It was not even there. And then it all somehow exploded. Why? No scientist has ever been able to explain how or why. Of course. Science is supposed to be based on measurements. How could you measure something that is unmeasurably small? Good reason to consider a different theory. I am not about to try a different theory. The galaxies are all moving away from one another. It all had to start from a central location a long time ago. But why and how? Scientists always like to jump into explanations. About this one they are noticeably silent. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Bang
On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 2:13:38 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Monday, January 22, 2018 Double-A wrote: On Monday, January 22, 2018 Mark Earnest wrote: The universe and everything that we now are started from a single point in space. It had no size at all. It was not even there. And then it all somehow exploded. Why? No scientist has ever been able to explain how or why. Of course. Science is supposed to be based on measurements. How could you measure something that is unmeasurably small? Good reason to consider a different theory. I am not about to try a different theory. The galaxies are all moving away from one another. It all had to start from a central location a long time ago. But why and how? Scientists always like to jump into explanations. About this one they are noticeably silent. The galaxies moving apart is only based on the assumption that the red shifting is because of Doppler effect. Hubble himself considered the idea of tired light. That is that something is sapping light of energy as it travels long distances. Contrary to modern physics doctrine, he did not jump to the conclusion of an expanding universe theory. Double-A |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Bang
On Monday, January 22, 2018, Double-A wrote:
On Monday, January 22, 2018, Mark Earnest wrote: On Monday, January 22, 2018 Double-A wrote: On Monday, January 22, 2018 Mark Earnest wrote: The universe and everything that we now are started from a single point in space. It had no size at all. It was not even there. And then it all somehow exploded. Why? No scientist has ever been able to explain how or why. Of course. Science is supposed to be based on measurements. How could you measure something that is unmeasurably small? Good reason to consider a different theory. I am not about to try a different theory. The galaxies are all moving away from one another. It all had to start from a central location a long time ago. But why and how? Scientists always like to jump into explanations. About this one they are noticeably silent. The galaxies moving apart is only based on the assumption that the red shifting is because of Doppler effect. Hubble himself considered the idea of tired light. That is that something is sapping light of energy as it travels long distances. Contrary to modern physics doctrine, he did not jump to the conclusion of an expanding universe theory. If the galaxies are not moving apart then you have the problem of steady state, where the universe has no beginning. You are talking about infinity backward in time. That is even more mind blowing than the Big Bang which includes a beginning to time. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Bang
On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 2:32:11 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Monday, January 22, 2018, Double-A wrote: On Monday, January 22, 2018, Mark Earnest wrote: On Monday, January 22, 2018 Double-A wrote: On Monday, January 22, 2018 Mark Earnest wrote: The universe and everything that we now are started from a single point in space. It had no size at all. It was not even there. And then it all somehow exploded. Why? No scientist has ever been able to explain how or why. Of course. Science is supposed to be based on measurements. How could you measure something that is unmeasurably small? Good reason to consider a different theory. I am not about to try a different theory. The galaxies are all moving away from one another. It all had to start from a central location a long time ago. But why and how? Scientists always like to jump into explanations. About this one they are noticeably silent. The galaxies moving apart is only based on the assumption that the red shifting is because of Doppler effect. Hubble himself considered the idea of tired light. That is that something is sapping light of energy as it travels long distances. Contrary to modern physics doctrine, he did not jump to the conclusion of an expanding universe theory. If the galaxies are not moving apart then you have the problem of steady state, where the universe has no beginning. You are talking about infinity backward in time. That is even more mind blowing than the Big Bang which includes a beginning to time. People will never accept an beginning anyway. Scientist keep trying to speculate on what came before the Big Bang. Double-A |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Bang
That is because, to any sane person, it obviously didn't happen that
way ! Just because the current universe seems to be expanding, doesn't mean it all somehow sprang from a single point, about 13.8 billion years ago ! Get real people ! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Bang
On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 6:19:36 wrote:
That is because, to any sane person, it obviously didn't happen that way ! Just because the current universe seems to be expanding, doesn't mean it all somehow sprang from a single point, about 13.8 billion years ago ! Get real people ! The universe is expanding. Sometimes scientists are actually right about things or we would not have the technology we have today. Since the universe is expanding it must have all started somewhere. You cannot say it all started when the galaxies were merely close together. That would be pulling a rabbit out of a magician's hat. It must have all started from a single point in space a long time ago. It is the only sound possibility. Some reject that notion because they have no way of practically explaining it. Don't give up. There is a way of explaining it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The Big Bang
That is because, to any sane person, it obviously didn't happen that
way ! Just because the current universe seems to be expanding, doesn't mean it all somehow sprang from a single point, about 13.8 billion years ago ! Get real people ! The universe is expanding. Sometimes scientists are actually right about things or we would not have the technology we have today. Yes, agreed. Since the universe is expanding it must have all started somewhere. Just how does that follow ? You cannot say it all started when the galaxies were merely close together. That would be pulling a rabbit out of a magician's hat. I didn't say that. It must have all started from a single point in space a long time ago. It is the only sound possibility. This is the significant part that I don't agree with. The notion that everything came from a point is totally insane and so unreasonable. Some reject that notion because they have no way of practically explaining it. Don't give up. There is a way of explaining it. It is the responsibility of the authors of the popular current single point of origin theory to prove it, which they haven't. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
(no, he doesn’t) (yes, he does) BANG BANG | Arc Michael | Misc | 0 | May 14th 16 08:49 PM |
Redshift and Microwave radiation favor Atom Totality and disfavorBig Bang #9; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory | Net-Teams, | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 31st 10 05:19 PM |
Before the Big Bang? | honestjohn | Misc | 3 | September 28th 06 03:32 AM |
B, Big, Big Bang, Big Bang Books... | socalsw | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | June 7th 04 09:17 AM |
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 27 | November 7th 03 10:38 AM |