The Big Bang Theory Big Blunder: An Open Letter to Closed Minds
in [Relativity]
|
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 30 Sep 2009 07:30 Albertito wrote on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:37:07 -0700: > On Sep 30, 11:28 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Albertito wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:13:56 -0700: >> >> > On Sep 29, 8:06 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" >> > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> f5be94af-7f2e-4aee-b04a-67ad61e2b...(a)o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com >> >> >> Empty minds were not invited here. >> >> >> Dirk Vdm >> >> > Then, why is this forum full of relativists? >> >> Maybe because sci.physics.relativity is about relativity? Just an >> idea... > > NONSENSE. > You are wrong, as usual, > sci.physics.relativity is NOT about relativity, but about RELIGION > spiced with ad hominem arguments. Your mental health is seriously deteriorating those last months. It was much more funny when you show us new *creative* ways :-D to misunderstand both special and general relativity, than now. Then we laugh seing how a self-proclaimed smart guy as you tried to cover your evident nonsenses whereas now it is all really pathetic :-( > :-D > > > >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto... -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Jonah Thomas on 30 Sep 2009 08:45 "Don Gillies" <gillies.don(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote > > Don Gillies <gillies.don(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote > >> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote > >>> Don Gillies wrote: > >>>> Don't want to get into putdowns and abuse here, and certainly > >don't>>> claim to know much. Commendable. > >>>> 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 :-) > > Ok I see what you're getting at. These are really the only two > possible scenarios. Yes, yours does seem the less fantastical. Suppose we were to go by evidence. The farther back you go, the more the evidence is muddied by things that happened later. On the other hand, if you believe that you know how long it takes light to travel very long distances, then you can compare closer light with more distant light to get solid concrete evidence of how things used to be. Apart from geology, distant EM radiation is pretty much all you have to go on, and you have to assume that you know how light behaves after it has traveled very long distances for very long times, based on your study of light that was created just about now. And of course, we have a strictly local view of recent things and a mostly-global view of distant things. Like, say you see something far away that you do not see nearby. Weird galaxies, maybe. Does that mean that there used to be a lot of weird galaxies but they've mostly gone away? Or could it be that there are still a lot of weird galaxies, but we are living in an atypical region that doesn't have them? No way to tell until we can go there and see, or else wait a very long time for more recent light to reach us.... Any conclusions we reach from astronomy have to be tentative. We look at little spots of light in the sky and decide what they mean, and the meanings get no verification except from other little spots of light in the sky. If you want to talk about how the spots of light in the sky affect things people can actually measure that happen here, you're talking astrology and as far as I know none of that has gotten results. OK, so we come up with ideas about how things used to be by looking at light from the sky, based on assumptions we use to classify the spots of light we get today into information about different tmes. Either we will decide that we know about things as far back as our instruments will tell us and that better instruments will let us look farther back, or we will decide that at some point the information is too fuzzed out by more recent events and so we've gone as far as we can go, or we will decide that at some point there was a particular event that was so intense that it keeps us from finding out anything about what may have come before. In that third case we might as well call the intense event the beginning. At the moment we're going with the third idea. In a few years we might switch to the first, and maybe eventually we'll get enough data to switch to the second approach. Maybe we'll get some fundamental breakthroughs, too. At the moment neutrinos are undetectable except by clumsy indirect methods which let us infer that they exist. If we find a way to focus them and get extremely detailed images from them, we will then have a second source of information to compare to the lights in the sky, better than charged high-energy particles. Comparing the light in the sky with the neutrinos in the sky would give us room for a whole lot of new theory.
From: funkenstein on 30 Sep 2009 09:54 On Sep 29, 12:59 pm, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > An Open Letter to Closed Mindshttp://www.s8int.com/bigbang2.html > > I apologize for my possibly rude words, > but Einstein's Relativity (both SR & GR) > along with the Big Bang Theory are all > > > > and > > > > the biggest damage to the advance of > science ever! Why do you bring in SR and GR when you wish to complain about big bang cosmology? They are tools used in cosmological theories, neither depends on validity of the big bang theory. You might as well include "mathematics" in your list of damages to the advancement of science, after all - many have used mathematics to present their incorrect hypotheses.
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 30 Sep 2009 10:27 funkenstein wrote: > On Sep 29, 12:59 pm, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> An Open Letter to Closed Mindshttp://www.s8int.com/bigbang2.html >> >> I apologize for my possibly rude words, >> but Einstein's Relativity (both SR & GR) >> along with the Big Bang Theory are all >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> the biggest damage to the advance of >> science ever! > > > Why do you bring in SR and GR when you wish to complain about big bang > cosmology? > They are tools used in cosmological theories, neither depends on > validity of the big bang theory. > > You might as well include "mathematics" in your list of damages to the > advancement of science, after all - many have used mathematics to > present their incorrect hypotheses. Don't forget to ban "language" as well, .... and while we're at it, let's just ban "Albertito Zotkin's complement". Dirk Vdm
From: Inertial on 5 Oct 2009 19:57
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:pqtkc55kip3ft0k9n1nr3re6r2ui22hpkb(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:54:48 -0700 (PDT), funkenstein > <luke.saul(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Sep 29, 12:59 pm, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> An Open Letter to Closed Mindshttp://www.s8int.com/bigbang2.html >>> >>> I apologize for my possibly rude words, >>> but Einstein's Relativity (both SR & GR) >>> along with the Big Bang Theory are all >>> >>> >>> >>> and >>> >>> >>> >>> the biggest damage to the advance of >>> science ever! >> >> >>Why do you bring in SR and GR when you wish to complain about big bang >>cosmology? >>They are tools used in cosmological theories, neither depends on >>validity of the big bang theory. > > The big bang theory depends entirely on Einstein's stupid second > postulate. > > Obviously light slows as it travels...hence an average red shift. It slows > at > about 72km/sec/Mpc. What a load of nonsense. there is no experimental support for that, not your made-up figure for rate of slowing. > Another cause of redshift is that Earth lies well away from our galactic > centre > whilst most light comes to us from near the centres of galaxies. So the > average > speed of incoming light relative to Earth is <c. > > Haven't you noticed that galaxies 13 billion LYs away are just the same as > local ones? They shouldn't exist at all according to the big-bangers. Why would they be any different? > Big Bang BIG BULL. No .. the big bullshitter is you. |