Big Bang Cosmology: Looking Back To The Dawn Of Time

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. illuminati confirmed m8
2. The notion of expansion only has meaning relative to space. "Expansion of Space" therefore could only have a meaning if space "expands" relative to two different perceptions of space. "Expansion" has a meaning relative to "a perception of space" yet has no meaning independent of "a perception of space". This is why the misconception of space in the big bang theory leads to the misconception of an origin of time. A universal beginning of time is a contradiction of the notion of time. Time can only be defined relative to different events at different points in time. The notion of a "beginning" implies a prior notion of "time", This is why any theory of the universe which implies an origin of time is inherently wrong philosophically as it would have a self contradiction as an underlying assumption.
   The Big Bang Theory implies that existence arises out of non-existence at a point in time which contradicts time itself. This is why the notion of space expansion can only be an illusion viewed in retrospect. Space does not expand and is not the implication of the red shift which merely implies that the wave of a quantum state has expanded. Recession velocity uses a classical viewpoint to interpret what a quantum mechanical phenomenon becomes after an astronomical time extension. Momentum is conserved within a quantum mechanical representation of the system yet evolves through time in a non commutative manner with regards to position and velocity. A wave packet is a superposition of waves. There is a natural tendency for wave packets to expand due to the uncertainty relationships amongst it's components. This is an expansion with respect to only one special frame of reference. The Big Bang Theory's "expansion" requires a duality in frame of reference whereby "space" has two different interpretations.
   Currently the Standard Model presumes that the red shift is "caused" by the impression it "creates".
   Scientists now are saying that a theory based upon the belief that nothing travels faster than light explains how galaxies  can travel faster than light because the theory explains that to them. The "reason" is that it's not traveling through space faster than light but is carried faster than light by the space itself. This is equivalent to saying it's not traveling faster than light through to the "Aether" but the "Aether" carries it's space faster than light relative to their position within the "Aether". This violates the principle of relativity's assumption of the non-existence of the "Aether"      
   A theory must depend on axioms and big bang proponents presume to re write the underlying axioms in retrospect bringing mysticism into science by redefining the very notions upon which science is defined.
   A scientist who finds a universal red shift from a collection of galaxies needs to find out why the light is red shifted yet has no right to make any assumptions from the red shift until the correct interpretation accounts for it. The "expansion of space" hypothesis introduces an entirely new assumption about the very nature of existence.
   "Existence" can only be explained by means of a "theory of existence".
3. There's a thing called a history book and a library that you can find all of this. 
4. This is wrong... Dark matter produces Dark energy ... the dark energy is expanding the universe. I know.... I discovered a new energy from lightning that does this. Relativistic Perturbation mantle. paper and video coming 
5. i meant "that way madness lies",sorry i was thinking about the science bit,and not concentrating.
6. indeed ! excuse my late reply,i had 61 messages hiding in plain sight,i am responding to some of them today,i had a discussion with a fan of "starlight and time by russel humphreys,do not seek this book out,that way lies,i literally just counted the violations(E= TAKES A BATTERING,AS DOES PAUL DIRAC'S RELATIVISTIC WAVE)he did not even account for the luminiferous aether,or pixies. p.s i am a big george smoot fan,peace to you and yours.
7. You are in denial. You can't back up your claims which totally go against reason and reality.
8. That's 5 errors of fact and a poor attempt at sarcasm. I think I am totally justified in saying What Utter Bullshit. Get an education.
9. Your statement is entirely faith based since it has never been observed. Energy needs to be harvested and processed, which is by repeated experience always connected to intelligence as an external causal agent. All connected to intelligible laws to be perceived by intelligence, so we might come to the right conclusion. BTW I just found a smartphone in nature.... isn't amazing what millions of years of evolution can do?
10. thanks for your reply,for any creationists who read this "LEARN STUFF,STUFF GOOD"
11. Cosmology seems to attract the ratbags. I wish they'd keep their specious nonsense to themselves.
12. "The earth is a closed system. A greenhouse is as well. Your knowledge is flawed. Matter + energy + entropy can never create and sustain life..." Nonsense. The Earth receives energy and radiates energy. Life exists on a flow energy. It uses energy and therefore increases entropy in the universe. There is nothing about the system that demands intelligence except in understanding it.
13. there are still people talking about god in these comments,hilarious ! 
14. nice video.
15. Her hands are so annoying :@
16. They are perfectly in line with reality and documented history, you just need to understand the physical and spiritual laws attached to them. Nothing remains vague when our repeated experience and the facts back it up. Yes religion has an authoritative structure which Jesus totalle exposed and turned around. Science proves God because of the intelligible laws together with the cause and effect structure, but the problem is that they are building their models on unproven wrong assumptions.
17. Those assumptions, which are indeed predicated on a lack of understanding, are inconsistent (i.e. not correctly corresponding) with the world. This is not exclusive of the Bible. It does matter to clarify how, and what has changed, otherwise, the explanation you're proposing remains rather vague. Religion has an authoritative structure (many individuals have felt the effects of this throughout history), conversely science which is a form of methodology. 
18. @bizzyb1999 No inconsistencies, just wrong assumptions and lack of understanding. You are right in regards to the organized theistic religions, but the Bible exposes them all, especially Christianity as we know it today. It does not matter how it changed, it matters that we observe this as fact. Which is the opposite of what is getting taught., and we buy the lie because we let authority be the truth rather than truth be the authority.
19. There are numerous inconsistencies between "revealed truths" and all that's rigorously known about reality (via sciences, histories etc.), there are, in fact, a myriad of truth claims made by a copious amount of theistic religions, which have failed to obtain. As specified in my reply, which animals, and how do atmospheric conditions engender the changes so described? A lack of direct observation is again, no valid basis to reject a hypothesis, and certainly does not entail ineffability.
20. God's truth is revealed through His revelations and manifestations, backed up by prophecy and perfectly lining up with true documented history leading right up to current world affairs, exactly as prophesied including all the major player involved. So the proof for God is out there!. Bone density, larger animals, larger ferns.... all in the fossil record and testify of a catasrophy. Spontaneous life has never been observed so can not be explained from a random chemical point of view.