Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On 04/07/2013 10:59, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 08:17:02 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 03/07/2013 00:11, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:03:20 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

On 30/06/2013 5:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
It is claimed that a big bang occurred 14 billion years ago at a central point
in space and all matter was ejected outward at c from that point.

There is no central point for space. What is the central point of a
*surface* of a sphere? The surface of the sphere has no central point,
even if the volume of the sphere has a central point. But the volume of
the sphere exists in a higher dimension than the surface area of the
sphere, so it's a different thing.

So ****ing what?
The universe is a volume not a bloody surface
If there was a Big Bang, as some idiots still think, it must have happened at
a point in that VOLUME.

NO! You are stuck with imagining a spacetime with nothing in it except
the Big Bang precursor. But before the Big Bang the spacetime itself was
undefined it was literally a void with no space or time.

Hahahhha! So one minute there is nothing...next minute, voila!!!! We have a
whole universe....Go to the top of the class....the magician's class.....

Quantum fluctuations allow all sorts of interesting things to happen on
the finest scales in our universe. Our universe may itself be a quantum
fluctuation in the void or if string theory is right the result of a
collision between objects in some higher dimensional space.

Our equations of physics become unclear at the moment of the Big Bang
but work pretty well from some infinitessimal time after to the present
day and predict the observed elemental abundances, a violent early
universe and the cosmic microwave background as classic observables.

Bull****. Little Bangs occur regularly in the form of Supernovae...and they're
not so little....

They are nothing like the original Big Bang and are well explained by
modern physics even to predicting the shapes of supernova remnants and
the light curve of the resulting object. They are superb standard
candles since a single Type Ia supernova can outshine an entire galaxy!

It was the huge density of observed active radio galaxies at great
distance that put the nail in the coffin of Steady State theory. We can
now see even deeper and get redshifts on many more distant galaxies.

Redshifts have nothing to do with an expanding universe. Light simply loses
energy as it travels....it turns red....

Tired light theory was already tired and discredited many years ago.

So similarly, there is no central point for space in the Universe, but
there is a central point for the space-time of the Universe. Similar to
how the surface area of a sphere and the volume of a sphere are at
different dimensional levels, the space vs. the space-time of the
Universe are at different dimensional levels.

What a load of crap...

You don't understand what you are talking about and make no effort to
learn - you just keep repeating your wild inaccurate claims.

You must be new here. Why don't you read some of the messages and find out
what most of us think about Einstein's silly theory.

Henry Wilson DSc.

Another drooling anti-Einstein ****wit with delusions of adequacy.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 02/07/2013 7:11 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:03:20 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

On 30/06/2013 5:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
It is claimed that a big bang occurred 14 billion years ago at a central point
in space and all matter was ejected outward at c from that point.

There is no central point for space. What is the central point of a
*surface* of a sphere? The surface of the sphere has no central point,
even if the volume of the sphere has a central point. But the volume of
the sphere exists in a higher dimension than the surface area of the
sphere, so it's a different thing.

So ****ing what?
The universe is a volume not a bloody surface
If there was a Big Bang, as some idiots still think, it must have happened at
a point in that VOLUME.

Because a 3D volume is not enough dimensions in this case to find a
central point. When I say space vs. space-time, I'm talking about the
same difference as between a sphere's surface area vs. its volume. Space
is just the 3D surface on a 4D object.

Space has no central point, but space-time does, it's called the Big
Bang. That's what so ****ing what!

snip

Yousuf Khan

On 04.07.2013 12:04, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:59:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 03.07.2013 22:49, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 11:15:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Nobody but ignorant cranks like yourself is claiming meaningless
drivel like this.

Then you might like to explain your crank creationist colleagues' version of
the BB.
You might like to comment on the fact that if a BB occurred, there must be a
point in the universe where the total vector momentum is zero.

Only ignorant cranks like yourself are claiming meaningless drivel like
this.

Yes you said that once...no need to repeat it....

I will do it anyway:
Only ignorant cranks like yourself are claiming meaningless
drivel like this.

Paul, what is your version of what happened in your supposed big bang?

I have no version.
But this could - if you hadn't been an ignorant crank - give
you an idea of what the big bang theory is.

http://www.scienceandreason.net/oq/oq-co008.htm

But since you are an ignorant crank, this version of
the big bang theory may be better suited to you
intellectual abilities:

http://www.tv.com/shows/the-big-bang-theory/

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:59:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 03.07.2013 22:49, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

wrote:

Nobody but ignorant cranks like yourself is claiming meaningless
drivel like this.

Then you might like to explain your crank creationist colleagues' version of
the BB.
You might like to comment on the fact that if a BB occurred, there must be a
point in the universe where the total vector momentum is zero.

Only ignorant cranks like yourself are claiming meaningless drivel like
this.

Yes you said that once...no need to repeat it....
Paul, what is your version of what happened in your supposed big bang?

Henry Wilson DSc.

On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:40:38 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

On 02/07/2013 7:11 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:03:20 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

On 30/06/2013 5:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
It is claimed that a big bang occurred 14 billion years ago at a central point
in space and all matter was ejected outward at c from that point.

There is no central point for space. What is the central point of a
*surface* of a sphere? The surface of the sphere has no central point,
even if the volume of the sphere has a central point. But the volume of
the sphere exists in a higher dimension than the surface area of the
sphere, so it's a different thing.

So ****ing what?
The universe is a volume not a bloody surface
If there was a Big Bang, as some idiots still think, it must have happened at
a point in that VOLUME.

Because a 3D volume is not enough dimensions in this case to find a
central point. When I say space vs. space-time, I'm talking about the
same difference as between a sphere's surface area vs. its volume. Space
is just the 3D surface on a 4D object.

Space has no central point, but space-time does, it's called the Big
Bang. That's what so ****ing what!

You're full of bull****....that's so ****ing what.

If a BB occurred, it must have occurred at a single point in 3D space at one
particular instant on the absolute and universal time scale.


snip

Yousuf Khan

Henry Wilson DSc.

On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:50:01 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 04/07/2013 10:59, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 08:17:02 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 03/07/2013 00:11, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:03:20 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

On 30/06/2013 5:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
It is claimed that a big bang occurred 14 billion years ago at a central point
in space and all matter was ejected outward at c from that point.

There is no central point for space. What is the central point of a
*surface* of a sphere? The surface of the sphere has no central point,
even if the volume of the sphere has a central point. But the volume of
the sphere exists in a higher dimension than the surface area of the
sphere, so it's a different thing.

So ****ing what?
The universe is a volume not a bloody surface
If there was a Big Bang, as some idiots still think, it must have happened at
a point in that VOLUME.

NO! You are stuck with imagining a spacetime with nothing in it except
the Big Bang precursor. But before the Big Bang the spacetime itself was
undefined it was literally a void with no space or time.

Hahahhha! So one minute there is nothing...next minute, voila!!!! We have a
whole universe....Go to the top of the class....the magician's class.....

Quantum fluctuations allow all sorts of interesting things to happen on
the finest scales in our universe. Our universe may itself be a quantum
fluctuation in the void or if string theory is right the result of a
collision between objects in some higher dimensional space.

I see....Your 'Quantum fluctuations' are responsible for 'absolutely nothing'
suddenly and spontaneously becoming a whole universe in a fraction of a
second. Very good! You are terribly clever.

Our equations of physics become unclear at the moment of the Big Bang
but work pretty well from some infinitessimal time after to the present
day and predict the observed elemental abundances, a violent early
universe and the cosmic microwave background as classic observables.

Bull****. Little Bangs occur regularly in the form of Supernovae...and they're
not so little....

They are nothing like the original Big Bang and are well explained by
modern physics even to predicting the shapes of supernova remnants and
the light curve of the resulting object. They are superb standard
candles since a single Type Ia supernova can outshine an entire galaxy!

Thewre was no original big bang. Only creationist fanatics support that stupid
idea because it fits in with their equally nonsensical belief system.

It was the huge density of observed active radio galaxies at great
distance that put the nail in the coffin of Steady State theory. We can
now see even deeper and get redshifts on many more distant galaxies.

Redshifts have nothing to do with an expanding universe. Light simply loses
energy as it travels....it turns red....

Tired light theory was already tired and discredited many years ago.

Bull****. Do you really belief that a minute quantum of energy emitted a
billion years ago can travel across all that space without being altered in
some way?


You must be new here. Why don't you read some of the messages and find out
what most of us think about Einstein's silly theory.

Henry Wilson DSc.

Another drooling anti-Einstein ****wit with delusions of adequacy.

....another Einstein worshipper desperately searching for just one piece of
evidence that supports his rubbish.

Henry Wilson DSc.

On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 17:52:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 04.07.2013 12:04, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:59:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Paul, what is your version of what happened in your supposed big bang?

I have no version.
But this could - if you hadn't been an ignorant crank - give
you an idea of what the big bang theory is.

http://www.scienceandreason.net/oq/oq-co008.htm

What a load of unadulterated crap. Typical dingleberry propaganda.....

The observed redshifts are not indicative of receding speeds alone. They are
caused by a number of factors. Firstly there is a general bias towards the red
because Planet Earth is a long way from the centre of a galaxy whereas average
cosmic light is emitted closer to galactic centres. That shift is not distance
dependent. Secondly, BaTh predicts a bias towards red due to a new type of
wavelength shift that is caused by source acceleration. In essence, the reason
is due to a natural bias in an equation of the type, 1/(1-D)...but I wont try
to explain here. Thirdly, no minute quantum of energy can possibly travel for
billions of years across space that is not entirely devoid of matter and
fields without being modified in some way. The end result must be a loss of
intrinsic energy that shows up as an increase in intrinsic wavelength. Photons
traveling in or near any one direction combine to form broad wavefronts. As
with any irreversible process, there is an entropy increase and the photons
lose energy.
Incidentally, BaTh predicts both Henrietta Leavitt cepheid relationship and a
distance related cosmic redshift.


But since you are an ignorant crank, this version of
the big bang theory may be better suited to you
intellectual abilities:

http://www.tv.com/shows/the-big-bang-theory/

Not that Brian Cox girl again, I hope.

Henry Wilson DSc.

On 04/07/2013 6:59 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:40:38 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
Because a 3D volume is not enough dimensions in this case to find a
central point. When I say space vs. space-time, I'm talking about the
same difference as between a sphere's surface area vs. its volume. Space
is just the 3D surface on a 4D object.

Space has no central point, but space-time does, it's called the Big
Bang. That's what so ****ing what!

You're full of bull****....that's so ****ing what.

If a BB occurred, it must have occurred at a single point in 3D space at one
particular instant on the absolute and universal time scale.

For somebody who asks so many ****ing questions, you have no capacity to
hear answers. It's a clever way to keep asking questions, because you'll
never run out of questions, since you'll keep asking the same ones over
and over again. Time to hang it up, and shut up for a moment.

Yousuf Khan

On 05/07/2013 00:09, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:50:01 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 04/07/2013 10:59, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

Henry Wilson DSc.

Another drooling anti-Einstein ****wit with delusions of adequacy.

...another Einstein worshipper desperately searching for just one piece of
evidence that supports his rubbish.

Henry Wilson DSc.


What was your doctorate in - floorsweeping or refuse collection?

Or a BOGOF internet scam special deal?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 14:39:15 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 05/07/2013 00:09, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:50:01 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 04/07/2013 10:59, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

Henry Wilson DSc.

Another drooling anti-Einstein ****wit with delusions of adequacy.

...another Einstein worshipper desperately searching for just one piece of
evidence that supports his rubbish.

Henry Wilson DSc.


What was your doctorate in - floorsweeping or refuse collection?

Or a BOGOF internet scam special deal?

Talk science or go away..


Henry Wilson DSc.