|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Planet_X: Our 10th Planet | Rudolph_X | Astronomy Misc | 841 | May 16th 04 05:00 PM |
Astral Space part 2 - Crookes work | Majestyk | Misc | 1 | April 14th 04 09:44 AM |
Astral Form - Crookes work (part 2) | expert | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 13th 04 12:05 PM |
Let's Destroy The Myth Of Astrology!! | GFHWalker | Astronomy Misc | 11 | December 9th 03 10:28 PM |
A dialogue between Mr. Big BANG and Mr. Steady STATE | Marcel Luttgens | Astronomy Misc | 12 | August 6th 03 06:15 AM |