The Big Bang Theory Big Blunder: An Open Letter to Closed Minds
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 29 Sep 2009 22:02 On Sep 29, 9:44 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > mpc755 a écrit : > > > > > On Sep 29, 9:26 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > >> mpc755 a écrit : > > >>> On Sep 29, 7:35 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > >>>> mpc755 a écrit : > >>>>> On Sep 29, 7:24 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > >>>>>> mpc755 a écrit : > >>>>>>> On Sep 29, 7:21 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > >>>>>>>> mpc755 a écrit : > >>>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 7:13 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> mpc755 a écrit : > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 6:43 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> mpc755 a écrit : > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 6:06 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpc755 wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] someone who prefers to remain ignorant such as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd better post this next time you'll answer to yourself.. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will fit perfectly. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, [nonsense] > >>>>>>>>>>>> It was rethorical! How dumb are you? I knew you won't! > >>>>>>>>>>> What you do not understand is the C-60 molecule is creating a > >>>>>>>>>>> displacement wave in the aether, so the nonsense of QM is unnecessary. > >>>>>>>>>>> But lets not go there. > >>>>>>>>>>> The universe is, or the local universe is in, a jet stream. > >>>>>>>>>> Mantra mode, again? > >>>>>>>>> If that's what it takes. > >>>>>>>>> [snip nonsense] > >>>>>>>> I didn't ask for more mantra. Thanks for confirming anyway. > >>>>>>> [more nonsense] > >>>>>> Why did you double confirm? We all know you're a nut. > >>>>> [same nonsense] > >>>> Triple confirm? Why? > >>> [same nonsense] > >> You lack integrity. > > > [again same nonsense] > > You should consult. This image of the 'big bang' is close to being accurate: http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html There is also a very good video about the formation of the 'stuff' in the universe that is linked from the homepage (http://aether.lbl.gov/ index.html): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c64Aia4XE1Y&feature=related I especially like the homepage address. If you take the image of the 'big bang' and superimpose it around the 'jet stream' in the rindler horizon image, you have a pretty accurate image of the universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates#Geodesics If you superimpose the first image above of the 'big bang' around either of the jet streams in the following two images, you get a better idea of what I am trying to convey: http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg http://huntersofthecloud.com/images/HuntersofTheCloudmagfield.gif In the above image the gray area moving with the black hole is the Rindler Horizon. The red lines are what we consider to be the 'big bang'.
From: mpc755 on 29 Sep 2009 22:03 On Sep 29, 10:58 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > On Sep 29, 8:39 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>mpc755 wrote: > > >>>On Sep 29, 8:08 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>>On Sep 29, 8:04 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>>>>On Sep 29, 6:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>On Sep 29, 5:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>On Sep 29, 6:06 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>[...] someone who prefers to remain ignorant such as > >>>>>>>>>>>yourself. > > >>>>>>>>>>You'd better post this next time you'll answer to yourself. > > >>>>>>>>>>It will fit perfectly. > > >>>>>>>>>No, I'm willing to look at the experimental evidence and make open > >>>>>>>>>minded judgments as to how best the concepts and theories support the > >>>>>>>>>evidence. > > >>>>>>>>>The simple fact QM has to say a C-60 molecule enters and exits both > >>>>>>>>>slits when you do not look for it, is enough nonsense for me to > >>>>>>>>>realize the QM explanation of what is occurring in nature is > >>>>>>>>>incorrect. > > >>>>>>>>As YBM said, you've described yourself well. Dismissing something as > >>>>>>>>nonsense before considering the evidence is what normal people call > >>>>>>>>"closed-minded". > > >>>>>>>The evidence is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > >>>>>>>slit, because it is always detected entering and exiting a single > >>>>>>>slit. You have to ignore the experimental evidence which fits your > >>>>>>>ignorance. > > >>>>>>No, you are trying to lie about what the experiment says in order > >>>>>>to fit your prejudices. Why do you think lying helps your case? > > >>>>>>>When I first heard of the double slit experiment it was obvious the > >>>>>>>particle was creating a displacement wave in the aether and the > >>>>>>>displacement wave created interference when exiting the slits, > >>>>>>>altering the direction the particle travels. This description of the > >>>>>>>observed behaviors is supported by the experimental evidence. > > >>>>>>Except that it is not and you are lying again. > > >>>>>Why is it not? > > >>>>Because you are lying about what the experiments showed. > > >>>What am I lying about? > > >>We have gone over this before. Reread the experiment. Or > >>search your previous posts. > > > You lack integrity. > > Amazing that you say this since you are the one lying > about what the experiments say. > If you accuse someone of lying, and don't back it up with specifics, you lack integrity. This image of the 'big bang' is close to being accurate: http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html There is also a very good video about the formation of the 'stuff' in the universe that is linked from the homepage (http://aether.lbl.gov/ index.html): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c64Aia4XE1Y&feature=related I especially like the homepage address. If you take the image of the 'big bang' and superimpose it around the 'jet stream' in the rindler horizon image, you have a pretty accurate image of the universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates#Geodesics If you superimpose the first image above of the 'big bang' around either of the jet streams in the following two images, you get a better idea of what I am trying to convey: http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg http://huntersofthecloud.com/images/HuntersofTheCloudmagfield.gif In the above image the gray area moving with the black hole is the Rindler Horizon. The red lines are what we consider to be the 'big bang'. > > > >>>>>>>I see no reason to consider nonsense. > > >>>>>>You seem to prefer lying to thinking. > > >>>>>>>>>The C-60 molecule is always detected entering and exiting a single > >>>>>>>>>slit because it always enters and exits a single slit. > >
From: Don Gillies on 29 Sep 2009 22:27 "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Zbvwm.274020$_Q3.114078(a)newsfe20.ams2... > Don Gillies <gillies.don(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > 4ac27d19$0$17749$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au > > [moved comment down - please do not top post - thx] > >> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in >> message >> news:4ac21820$0$2851$ba620e4c(a)news.skynet.be... >>> Don Gillies wrote: >>>> Don't want to get into putdowns and abuse here, and certainly don't >>>> claim to know much. However, I must say that I find the idea of the >>>> big bang (a whole lot of stuff appearing out of nothing) just as >>>> fantastical as the idea that three letters of the alphabet strung >>>> together to spell "god" explain the creation of the universe. A bit >>>> more technical detail with the big bang theory, of course, but as far >>>> as I know, it hasn't got round the difficulty of how something (an >>>> incredible lot of stuff, actually) came out of nothing. I have often >>>> felt a bit uneasy about how astronomy books nowdays treat the big >>>> bang as accepted fact. There was a time, not so long ago, when books >>>> did present it as supposition. Not sure when the change from >>>> supposition to accepted dogma came about, but it does look a bit like >>>> everyone now feels they have to toe the party line. >>> >>> You find the idea of the universe appearing out of nothing >>> fantastical. Would you find the idea of the universe always >>> having been around (or having appeared out of *something*), >>> and at the same time conspiring to make us think it appeared >>> out of nothing, less fantastical? >> >> Mmm. I think about equally fantastical. > > I personally find the latter seriously more fantastical. > But I think that universe doesn't really care. > >> My mind has trouble with the "always >> having been around". Maybe as someone else suggests here, I should have >> posted to a religious group. But then, not really interested in what they >> might have to say. (Closed mind on religion) > > Welcome to the club :-) > > Dirk Vdm Ok I see what you're getting at. These are really the only two possible scenarios. Yes, yours does seem the less fantastical. Don Gillies
From: eric gisse on 30 Sep 2009 05:31 Albertito wrote: > An Open Letter to Closed Minds > http://www.s8int.com/bigbang2.html *giggle* I love some of the signatories: Arp, Baryshev, Lerner, Marmet, *TOM VAN FLANDERN*... But not as much as the intensely naive belief that an open letter of vented bile coupled with a high schooler's grasp of the subject is sufficient to dislodge a wildly successful scientific theory. > > I apologize for my possibly rude words, > but Einstein's Relativity (both SR & GR) > along with the Big Bang Theory are all > > B U L L S H I T ! > > and > > D E F E C A T I O N ! > > the biggest damage to the advance of > science ever!
From: Albertito on 30 Sep 2009 05:39
On Sep 29, 6:33 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Albertito wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:59:06 -0700: > > > An Open Letter to Closed Minds > >http://www.s8int.com/bigbang2.html > > There is several difficulties with the big bang theory. This is known for > specialists not so for laymen as you. > > However, some of the alternatives proposed in that letter (as the > steady state model) are not longer pursued even by their fathers > because they were proved to disagree with observation [#]. > > Once said this, you are again a PRETENDER! You are the PRETENDER, because you managed to learn some physics and mathematical skills, you think you are superb and can judge for what is wrong, nonsense, correct or incorrect. You are a dangerous troll that exploits scientism to debunk people. Your sectarianism to pseudo-science is a patent fact. Canonicalscience.com is a destructive sect, and you are one of its priests. You suffer from materialistic and reductionist ideas, that make you a loser and an unhappy coward. Your weak health is an expression of your mystified ideas, not only about physics and chemistry, but any field in life. Being a self-proclaimed theoretical physicist as you is the patent self-proclamation of a pedantic, pompous troll who lacks creativity and courage. :-D > > They do not support neither your irrational attacks on SR nor your > IDIOTIC pseudo-theories. > > > I apologize for my possibly rude words, but Einstein's Relativity (both > > SR & GR) along with the Big Bang Theory are all > > > B U L L S H I T ! > > > and > > > D E F E C A T I O N ! > > > the biggest damage to the advance of > > science ever! > > [#] Hoyle now promotes a quasi-steady state that accepts some elements from > the big bang theory. > > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > > BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto... |