BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST

The Big Bang, the Scientific Establishment's theory of the birth
of the universe, is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense
in another of its vain, arrogant attempts to display its omnscience.

Once again, the pseudoscientists are out in left field regarding
a realistic response to a monumental question, therefore pull
a ludicrous theory out of their hat

The fact is, theBig Bang has been reduced to shreds by just
one photograph, that of the "Hubble Deep Field."

http://www.edconrad.com/images/istherereally.jpg

And you can be sure, the Scientific Establishment very much regrets
that it was ever taken.

For years, the corupt Pseudoscientific Establishment has been jamming
gobs of gibberish down our throat but this one photograph has
certainly set them back on their heels, although it won't admit it..
You see, the mindboggling photo was taken long after their facetious
theory of the Big Bang was first proposed -- at a time that no one had
any idea of the unfathomable size and scope of the universe.

The manufacture of such pablum decades ago -- long before the "Deep
Field" photo -- could, indeed, have been accepted, with a grain of
salt as being, well, remotely possible. But certainly not afterward,
especially when it is fact, not fiction, that the scope and size of
our universe is even beyond anyone's wildest imagination .

To know for sure there is a stupendous array of galaxies in ALL
directions, far from what the best conventional telescopes previoulsy
had seen, presents even ANOTHER question that no scientist can
answer: Just how immense is our universe, and does it ever end?

That a Big Bang could've even been remotely responible for the
existence of our universe is sheer folly, and to promulgate such
fiction and fantasy is pseudoscientism at its best.

And, be assured, when the Hubble someday likewise focuses
on a teeny-weeny dark patch of sky as shown in the "Hubble Deep
Field" photo -- if the Pseudosscientific Establishment can't prevent
it from being taken - there will be a similiar scene of unfathomable
magnificience, probably more majestic galaxies than are in the
original "Deep Field" photo itself.

Those patheic pseudoscieniss keep forgetting the words of the
late, great Thomas Alva Edison:

"We don't know one-tenth
of one percent about anything."

Ed Conrad
http://www.edconrad.com

Man as Old as Coal

"Ed Conrad" wrote in message
...


The Big Bang, the Scientific Establishment's theory of the birth
of the universe, is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense
in another of its vain, arrogant attempts to display its omnscience.

Don't tell me ... You've found a rock that looks like Sir Fred Hoyle.

Man as Dumb as Coal

"John Zinni" wrote in news:8osob.3580
:

"Ed Conrad" wrote in message
...


The Big Bang, the Scientific Establishment's theory of the birth
of the universe, is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense
in another of its vain, arrogant attempts to display its omnscience.

Don't tell me ... You've found a rock that looks like Sir Fred Hoyle.


When did Hoyle get knighted?

Hopefully it was before he tried his
hand at sci-fi writing. He should have
stuck to his astronomy lectures.....

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 8:58:52 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote
(in message ):

"John Zinni" wrote in news:8osob.3580
:

"Ed Conrad" wrote in message
...


The Big Bang, the Scientific Establishment's theory of the birth
of the universe, is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense
in another of its vain, arrogant attempts to display its omnscience.

Don't tell me ... You've found a rock that looks like Sir Fred Hoyle.


When did Hoyle get knighted?

1972. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle


Hopefully it was before he tried his
hand at sci-fi writing.

Nope. About 15 years afterwards.

He should have
stuck to his astronomy lectures.....




--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

Ed Conrad wrote in message . ..


For years, the corupt Pseudoscientific Establishment has been jamming
gobs of gibberish down our throat but this one photograph has
certainly set them back on their heels, although it won't admit it..
You see, the mindboggling photo was taken long after their facetious
theory of the Big Bang was first proposed -- at a time that no one had
any idea of the unfathomable size and scope of the universe.
snippage
Those patheic pseudoscieniss keep forgetting the words of the
late, great Thomas Alva Edison:

"We don't know one-tenth
of one percent about anything."

Ed Conrad
http://www.edconrad.com

Man as Old as Coal

Hmmm... So when people thought that the universe was static and
infinite, they also didn't suspect the size and scope? How do you get
bigger than infinite? And how is it any more fathomable than this
'infinte + x". And those pictures ALSO taken in which we have seen
the galaxies moving apart, and weve seen the extreme UV (I think, its
some kind of em freq) that is consistent with the BB, what about them?
SO _all_ those pictures are wrong, and this one is right? as for
calling US (or at least ME) a psuedo, who confirms specimens without
any testing, that have been rejected by the smithsonian several times,
many other scientists, and since you seem to think they all hate you
(thats called paranoia by the way) they have also been rejected by the
National Inquirer (or enquirer, whichever it is I dont care). This
isnt really the most 'reputable' of sources. In fact Its less
reputable than Fox (or Faux- I Iiked that) News is left. That
gibberish (I like to hear myself talk. Waitaminit...) means that it
isnt reputable at all.
The very fact that you SENT it to them seriously shows some lack of
intelligence. Maybe you should learn what is "real" and what is
"fake", hell the Daily Show
has more truthful news, and its intelligent. But really, stop whining
about how your straw men and paranoia have proven us wrong. It hasnt.
Its shown you to be the laughable fool you are.

If youre as old as coal, why arent you dead?

In sci.astro Ed Conrad wrote:

The Big Bang, the Scientific Establishment's theory of the birth
of the universe, is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense
in another of its vain, arrogant attempts to display its omnscience.

Just a minute, there Ed old boy. While I'm in total agreement
that the Scientific Establishment's theory of the Big Bang birth
of the universe is completely in error, I would hardly call it
"pseudoscientific nonsense"! It simply arises directly and
obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being
due to a Doppler shift.

And while there are many examples of establishment science
being vain, arrogant, and attempting to show it's omniscience
with "plausible" explanations for any anomalous data rather
than making a serious attempt to get at the truth, I think
your broad brush goes way too far. That makes you little
better than them!

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

In article , wrote:
In sci.astro Ed Conrad wrote:

The Big Bang, the Scientific Establishment's theory of the birth
of the universe, is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense
in another of its vain, arrogant attempts to display its omnscience.

Just a minute, there Ed old boy. While I'm in total agreement
that the Scientific Establishment's theory of the Big Bang birth
of the universe is completely in error, I would hardly call it
"pseudoscientific nonsense"! It simply arises directly and
obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being
due to a Doppler shift.

To what should we ascribe it? Sunburn? Cosmic embarassment? It's believed
to be due to redshift because (a) that fits the facts and (b) none of the
alternatives do.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

In sci.astro Alan Morgan wrote:
It simply arises directly and
obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being
due to a Doppler shift.

To what should we ascribe it? Sunburn? Cosmic embarassment? It's believed
to be due to redshift because (a) that fits the facts and (b) none of the
alternatives do.

My, my. Just can't help yourself. Just have to be vain and
arrogant! No wonder Ed feels like he does! :-)

I think in your sentence above you really meant to say that
it [redshift] is due to Doppler shift because (a) that fits the
facts and (b) none of the alternatives do.

Sure, that was apparently the case so far. But once string theory
opened the possiblity of multidimensional reality, one needs
to go back and re-think old views rather than simply make
snide comments to defend traditional theories.

Personally I haven't seen much evidence that the universe is
expanding if one discards red shift data. I think this is
why "tired light" theories are popular (though such light
properties do not appear to have ever been measured).

But then, my hypersphere theory hasn't been "proved" either.
If it were, then why would I be discussing it here?

bjacoby

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

"Ed Conrad" wrote



^----
Why do your posts show up with extra symbols in them?

The fact is, theBig Bang has been reduced to shreds by just
one photograph, that of the "Hubble Deep Field."

http://www.edconrad.com/images/istherereally.jpg

And you can be sure, the Scientific Establishment very much regrets
that it was ever taken.

What's wrong with the photo? It's the edge (or close to it) of the
observable universe.

To know for sure there is a stupendous array of galaxies in ALL
directions, far from what the best conventional telescopes previoulsy
had seen, presents even ANOTHER question that no scientist can
answer: Just how immense is our universe, and does it ever end?

There is really no way to tell that. The galaxies you see in the
HDF were about 1 billion light years from us when the light first
left. The universe is expanding so rapidly it took 14 billion years
to get here. Any galaxies further than that would be farther than
14 BLY away (actually, 28 billion because they are now 14BLY
away from where they look to be now) and hence the light
wouldn't have had time to reach us. Even if the universe is 900
BLY across, that doesn't hurt the BB model; every position just
gets to see their "chunk" equal to the age of the universe.

There is good evidence that the universe is much larger than the
visible portion since space is Euclidian across what's visible,
but Relativity theory says space should be curved. So it might be
so large the curvature flattens out. (I'm sure sci.astro will correct
this if it's wrong.)

And, be assured, when the Hubble someday likewise focuses
on a teeny-weeny dark patch of sky as shown in the "Hubble Deep
Field" photo -- if the Pseudosscientific Establishment can't prevent
it from being taken - there will be a similiar scene of unfathomable
magnificience, probably more majestic galaxies than are in the
original "Deep Field" photo itself.

I'm not sure what you can mean by that. An infinitely powerful
telescope would resolve all of the galaxies at the absolute edge
of the observable universe in high definition, but the space they
are set in would be black; you wouldn't get any more galaxies
until they "winked on" when the light finally hit us.

The galaxies that show up would look redder and redder and
eventually no new galaxies would appear because they are
moving away faster than the speed of light. Then visible galaxies
at the edge would start to wink out and in the end it will just be
us and the Virgo cluster.

Are you suggesting we will just keep seeing deeper and deeper
into space with no end in sight? I doubt it, but Hubble's photo
doesn't prove that. Anyway, the bogus tired-light theory should
provide some observational limit, if it were true.

--
Craig Franck

Cortland, NY

Ed, what do you think of the main argument of:

The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pi...ba.gl.umbc.edu

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ed Conrad wrote:

The Big Bang, the Scientific Establishment's theory of the birth
of the universe, is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense
in another of its vain, arrogant attempts to display its omnscience.

Once again, the pseudoscientists are out in left field regarding
a realistic response to a monumental question, therefore pull
a ludicrous theory out of their hat

The fact is, theBig Bang has been reduced to shreds by just
one photograph, that of the "Hubble Deep Field."

http://www.edconrad.com/images/istherereally.jpg

And you can be sure, the Scientific Establishment very much regrets
that it was ever taken.

For years, the corupt Pseudoscientific Establishment has been jamming
gobs of gibberish down our throat but this one photograph has
certainly set them back on their heels, although it won't admit it..
You see, the mindboggling photo was taken long after their facetious
theory of the Big Bang was first proposed -- at a time that no one had
any idea of the unfathomable size and scope of the universe.

The manufacture of such pablum decades ago -- long before the "Deep
Field" photo -- could, indeed, have been accepted, with a grain of
salt as being, well, remotely possible. But certainly not afterward,
especially when it is fact, not fiction, that the scope and size of
our universe is even beyond anyone's wildest imagination .

To know for sure there is a stupendous array of galaxies in ALL
directions, far from what the best conventional telescopes previoulsy
had seen, presents even ANOTHER question that no scientist can
answer: Just how immense is our universe, and does it ever end?

That a Big Bang could've even been remotely responible for the
existence of our universe is sheer folly, and to promulgate such
fiction and fantasy is pseudoscientism at its best.

And, be assured, when the Hubble someday likewise focuses
on a teeny-weeny dark patch of sky as shown in the "Hubble Deep
Field" photo -- if the Pseudosscientific Establishment can't prevent
it from being taken - there will be a similiar scene of unfathomable
magnificience, probably more majestic galaxies than are in the
original "Deep Field" photo itself.

Those patheic pseudoscieniss keep forgetting the words of the
late, great Thomas Alva Edison:

"We don't know one-tenth of one percent about anything."