Big Bang = Creationist = Belief = Sect = Gods

[lbiar]

Expansion and Big Bang theories need creation (it's creation, not expansion from compressed - more: is space creation from nothing), expansion need creation of space all time and in all places (also there are not geometrical figure that can make this), this is magic, need belief and creationism. Big Bang also need a moment initial with more creation. All their is impossible (1e,2e,4e) and against physic, physic laws and science in general.

 

Astronomers say that have proof and evidences like any believer (normally from anything impossible): UFO, astrology, martians, ... this makes of astronomers and scientist in general a believer, sectarian and creationism (any mathematician can demonstrate that there are not geometrical figure according to expansion theory).

 

Science not need creation (creationism), physic and astronomy also not, but astronomers and scientist believe in an impossible, believe in an impossible only can be a belief, magic, religion, ... Biology is against creationism (evolution from Darwin) but astronomy make against traveling from physic laws and science to creationism, magic and gods.

 

This impossible not make possible "tired light hypothesis", the day that gives bad "tired light" seem strange why give good expansion and Big Bang (also impossible). "Steady State model" is bad because not consider visual expansion. But the impossible is impossible, cannot have the solution, but this not permit admit an impossible how solution.

 

The real solution need to be according to the facts: redshift, time delay, homogeneous, flat, Hubble's law, visual expansion in all sides and directions, ... and probably according to a visual effect: hypothesis 14h - but this work is not over a solution, is over an impossible: expansion of the universe is impossible and is a creationist magic and belief. At least are today a rational solution how an optic effect (an optic effect is flat and equal in all directions like need the visual expansion of the universe: my hypothesis 14h work in this).

 

It's impossible at least by 1e (creation of space from nothing = magic and creationism) and 4e (there is not geometrical figure according to visual expansion of universe). Also use expansion (it's not compressed) by creation is a triple fraud (evidence 8se)

 

Astronomers reject my work and say that universe expansion is evident: NO. The impossible cannot be evident. The supposed expansion (creation) cannot be against physic laws and mathematics. An impossible belief convert the scientists in belief, creationist and sect (sect how believers in UFO, martians, astrology, ..)

 

The creationism (expansion of the universe is not from compressed, is creation and by that is creationism) is the exit of the religions (or modern theory: "Intelligent design": Intelligent Design Creationism is not science; it makes no testable predictions so it cannot be falsified. Intelligent Design Creationism is a belief system; it is religion. - http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/ID/ or "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." and "The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[n 4][n 5][6][7] and indeed is pseudoscience." in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design. All creationism is anti science even expansion of the universe and Big Bang. - In the same form that for biology also can to be applied to astronomy.

 

I'm not ashamed of to say the true, maybe you will be ashamed by not recognize it.

 

This belief makes the scientists a believers and take the control over new ideas in science, so newspapers, ... reject any idea against their belief, ... This constitute a control according to scientists or according to a power over theirs, but that scientists belief and admit.

 

So, admitting that scientists in newspaper are into the sect and that my work is rejected in all parts and that this is not science, is information general that I go to use other systems, like press note to general press. This is not cosmology, not astronomy and not science, this is sect, belief, believers and creationism (gods, ..) and in the same form that UFO, martians, astrology is not science: expansion of the universe and Big Bang also is not science. (an impossible only is an impossible and belief in it is against science).

 

Also seem that all the theories are good, all very robust, but it's not so: 2 theories taken like Big Bang evidences are incompatibles: "39e - Deuterium from First Three Minutes is incompatible with first atoms in CMBR" and probably more errors, really nothing is good, nothing is according to physic laws, ...

 

In the same form: How can I consider reject or admit from a sect how this time are scientists believers in creationism?

 

So, I have been rejected near 2 years in scientific newspaper, no more submission and also not transfer of my copyright. Scientific newspaper also need discredit by rejecting good works, ...

 

Look also my evidences 89e and 110e

 

I have not prestige today, but according to the so big future discredit for all scientists believers probably is better.

 

You can continue with your belief or understand that expansion (creation) and Big Bang are impossibles. If you understand this is false you can or not make nothing or help me in viral circulation (I need your help) in email, news, forums, blogs, science newspaper, general newspaper, radio, press, tv, ... (I cannot access all and register in all forums, ...) and all alternative channels. Thanks.

 

This is a press note. Not answer, you can continue with your believe, but I don't need to read your arguments over your belief.

 

(this is 15se in my web page http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/)

[joekgamer]

The Big Bang Theory is not related to creationism. Creationism is an inherently religous concept. It deals with a mystical 'creator' whose origin is never explained. The Big Bang Theory does not create something from nothing. It simply explains a very credible method for the creation of the universe. Also, it could tie in with string theory in that the 'starting point' for the Big Bang was actually a sort of 'protrusion' from another dimension. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Big Bang Theory as it now is does not deal with the cause of the Big Bang.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Polymath,

 

However, to the best of my knowledge, the Big Bang Theory as it now is does not deal with the cause of the Big Bang.

 

Just as religion doesn't explain where 'god' came from neither does BB theory explain where the BB came from. Stephen Hawking, in 'A Brief History of Time' said that 'god' could not have existed prior to the BB.

 

Thats what I could never figure out, in the first milliseconds of the BB how did a previously stable state turn into an expanding universe?

 

If you look at the problem discretely you would have to admit that the first 'tick' on the BB clock caused the stable state to not be stable anymore. The next 'tock' on the BB universe clock was when the second thing moved.

 

In theologian terms, in the beginning was 'god' and he made the earth in 7 days, then along came Adam and Eve, don't you worry about the detail just use blind faith.

 

In BB terms, in the beginning was the BB and it created the universe with the help of tick and tock, don't you worry about the detail just use blind faith.

[sanctus]

Laurie, there is a big difference though with BB wrt the theological beginning. If we accept BB we can deduce a lot of things which we then scientifically measure. This is not the case with the theoogical beginning. So the blind faith for BB is much better supported.

[Tormod]

It seems the OP has a lack of knowledge regarding what the big bang theory is and what the aspects of it are.

 

Inflation theory pretty much nailed the big bang theory and so far observations are in line with predictions. In fact, since the first direct measurement of the CMBR in 1964, big bang cosmology has moved out of the realm of speculation and into mainstream science.

 

I recommend the book "The 4 Percent Universe" which outlines modern cosmology and shows how it has grown into a strong scientific field.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Percent-Universe-Matter-Discover-Reality/dp/0618982442

[LaurieAG]

Hi Sanctus,

 

Laurie, there is a big difference though with BB wrt the theological beginning. If we accept BB we can deduce a lot of things which we then scientifically measure. This is not the case with the theoogical beginning. So the blind faith for BB is much better supported.

 

So a scientific infinity that is only half as big as a theological infinity can be regarded as something that is in the blind faith category because the credibility gap is only 50%?

 

Realistically the only BB like we're ever going to see is the one that is slowly concentrating all of this worlds wealth into the hands of a few individuals, corporations and sovereign nation states. Where will it end considering that the speculators have free reign on the system and sucking the grease out of the bearings is more profitable than using the engine to drive a national economy because the national mechanics just keeps pumping in the grease to keep the whole thing going.

 

Lets just model the end game over the next 10 years or so and be finally done with any scientific presumptions that a tainted man made system, that could only 'naturally' operate in a parallel political universe that had litte in connection with nature or reality, would be a good physical starting point (in reverse) for an expanding BB universe model!

 

Our finacial parallel universe is going to go into a close to singularity state and most of the worlds scientists are celebrating that they know that the real number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin is only half as many as the eminent scientists/theologians of the past have calculated. Bravo.

 

I have called repeatedly for a validation of our entire astronomical viewpoint by removing 3 levels of spin out of our observations and comparing these non spun observations with what we see now after manipulating our observations, but blind faith always wins over in the end doesn't it?

 

Just for any atomic scientists, masters of the universe or whatever, who may be reading:-

 

The global financial reactor is generating way too much energy (70+%) from too few fuel rods (<10%, with 1% generates 30%!!!), the peak power surges are increasing in strength and increasing in frequency while the cooling mechanism stays the same allover at huge expense. How long did it take Chernoble or 3 Mile Island to blow?

[joekgamer]

Hi Sanctus,

 

 

 

So a scientific infinity that is only half as big as a theological infinity can be regarded as something that is in the blind faith category because the credibility gap is only 50%?

 

Realistically the only BB like we're ever going to see is the one that is slowly concentrating all of this worlds wealth into the hands of a few individuals, corporations and sovereign nation states. Where will it end considering that the speculators have free reign on the system and sucking the grease out of the bearings is more profitable than using the engine to drive a national economy because the national mechanics just keeps pumping in the grease to keep the whole thing going.

 

Lets just model the end game over the next 10 years or so and be finally done with any scientific presumptions that a tainted man made system, that could only 'naturally' operate in a parallel political universe that had litte in connection with nature or reality, would be a good physical starting point (in reverse) for an expanding BB universe model!

 

Our finacial parallel universe is going to go into a close to singularity state and most of the worlds scientists are celebrating that they know that the real number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin is only half as many as the eminent scientists/theologians of the past have calculated. Bravo.

 

I have called repeatedly for a validation of our entire astronomical viewpoint by removing 3 levels of spin out of our observations and comparing these non spun observations with what we see now after manipulating our observations, but blind faith always wins over in the end doesn't it?

 

Just for any atomic scientists, masters of the universe or whatever, who may be reading:-

 

The global financial reactor is generating way too much energy (70+%) from too few fuel rods (<10%, with 1% generates 30%!!!), the peak power surges are increasing in strength and increasing in frequency while the cooling mechanism stays the same allover at huge expense. How long did it take Chernoble or 3 Mile Island to blow?

 

...What?

 

Are you comparing Wall Street to a nuclear reactor?

 

I don't see the connection.

[BradyWang]

...What?

 

Are you comparing Wall Street to a nuclear reactor?

 

I don't see the connection.

 

I guess they're both capable of meltdowns?

[joekgamer]

So it was sort of a pun?

[LaurieAG]

Hi Polymath,

 

So it was sort of a pun?

 

I suppose it must be if the Nobel Prize Economics Committee award to Merton and Scholes for quantum financial maths was a pun.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes

 

Espen Gaarder Haug and Nassim Nicholas Taleb argue that the Black–Scholes model merely recast existing widely used models in terms of practically impossible "dynamic hedging" rather than "risk," to make them more compatible with mainstream neoclassical economic theory.[8]

 

Jean-Philippe Bouchaud argues: 'Reliance on models based on incorrect axioms has clear and large effects. The Black–Scholes model[9], for example, which was invented in 1973 to price options, is still used extensively. But it assumes that the probability of extreme price changes is negligible, when in reality, stock prices are much jerkier than this. Twenty years ago, unwarranted use of the model spiralled into the worldwide October 1987 crash; the Dow Jones index dropped 23% in a single day, dwarfing recent market hiccups.

 

Seriously though, how long before the global financial reactor blows?

[joekgamer]

A 'global financial reactor' is a concept, a metaphor at best. I don't exactly see how it relates to this topic or how/why you drew the economy-nuclear reactor correlation.

[Saulomo]

One of the main arguments for BB is that the universe is still expanding. I believe that the first atoms were created by flaws in temperature, and everything started by a small flaw in the absolute zero (-273.15 C) temperature. In nothing is there, if somehow, a small flaw (which I'm not able to explain, so don't ask me about it) should occur, this would be enough to revolutionize everything. Ultimately, the change in temperature would provide great change in general.

[joekgamer]

Before the Big Bang, there was nothing to have a tempature.

[Saulomo]

Can you provide proof for that statement? It is quite a heavy one. To argue that the Big Bang came from nothing contradicts the Big Bang theory itself as it is said to be the cause of extremely high temperature concentrated on an extremely small area. And as you said, when there is nothing there, not even physical fields, there is no temperature.

[joekgamer]

The Big Bang did came from a 'scientific point', meaning that it was infinitly small, and since anything over infinity is zero (mass over size), there was zero mass and therefore nothing to have a temperature before the Big Bang.

 

As for the first part of your statment, that is the Big Bang Theory.

[LaurieAG]

Hi polymath,

 

A 'global financial reactor' is a concept, a metaphor at best. I don't exactly see how it relates to this topic or how/why you drew the economy-nuclear reactor correlation.

 

Did you even bother to look at the maths and principles in the wiki link?

 

I would expect that someone who would call themselves polymath would actually have a basic understanding of the commonality and differences between the maths of finance and atomic maths. Or at least bothered to get across those commonalities and differences before making that type of comment.

[joekgamer]

Yes, I did read the wiki page, and I just did so again to make sure I didn't miss anything. By that post, I basically meant that I didn't understand how the correlation between the economy and a nuclear reactor 'works' or how you drew it. All I can see is that the key concepts in both can be expressed with math.

 

Could you please explain?