The Big Bang is Bunk.

There are millions to billions to trillions of instances where that's not the case. If the chances are one in a billion that a planet would support life, then about every billionth planet should support life.

 

.

oh , yes , i hold a universal language devise that can receive
alien transmissions . i ask(of the big bang) h'xdca~sa~qct .
enter . reply forthcoming . a~rbedd p . this is translated :

matter has nothing to do with the beginning . the
radiation was before matter . a more appropriate
investigation is Space itself . don't assume 'emptiness' .
Space has meaning .

who said this ?

zeegboodude uv d'da~

 

Wow, that shit blew my mind, man. Not sure if it was intended as fiction, or not, but fuck did it make alot of sense to me.

It's somewhat reminicent of the book I mentioned in my last post, "God's Debris". The central character in that book is a level five being, an Avatar, who knows literally everything in the Universe. The entire book is him, and another man, discussing the Universe, God, probabaility, matter, etc. Very enlightening read, although the author himself admits it was written as fiction.

That's what I don't get about that piece, though. Was it intended as fiction, or is this guy actually trying to say he spoke with "God"?

 

.



of god ... the fiction or reality is nothing much to consider . we
reach for new truth through metaphor and philosophy . reasoning
from fact is quite inadequate . it is too limited by language . but
once new language is discovered to be relational , then reasoning
is useful again for awhile .

 

wasn't it einstien who has been proven to be a complete quack and only gained his notoriety by stealing the work of brilliant scientists while he was working for the patent office in austria?
geez the information gap these days!

 

anyone ever read Earthclan? fucking awesome book along these lines of the true birth of mankind...
big bang is bunk!

 

How does the big bang theory have anything to do with creationism

 

That is the dumbest made up remark i have ever heard you need to jump off the largest cliff you can find

 

.

 

There's a big difference between speculation (religion) and theoretical physics (superstring). Thanks!

 

Why? When you've studied it you realise its still faith, but faith in numbers as opposed to a higher being. Faith is believing in something you cannot prove. There is no one on this planet that can prove superstring theory is correct, im not saying its wrong infact id be suprised if it is entirely wrong given its based on two of the most successful theories ever. However the few predictions it has made do not work in our universe, so theorists not say that superstring theory is correct but in another universe. Though in my humble opinion a theory not matching observation is more or less the defintion of wrong but im just old fashioned like that.

Im not on a crusade againt theoretical physics, after all if it comes before experiment then it shows we really do understand what is going on (relativity and the standard model are great examples). However pushing a completely new and unverified theory too hard as fact creates the misconception in society that it is somehow fact. In particular it leads to bizarre arguments like that science proves there is no god or something similar. Even if superstring theory answers everything and we have a theory of everything some clever spark is going to ask what made the strings. At some level there is always going to be room for religion. Every year I study I find twice as many questions as answers, this is why i like physics not because im under any illusion that we'll find the answer to life the universe and everything.

 

thats funny, thats kind of like einsteins reputation is doing as people are uncovering for themselves. plummeting. e=mc2 or in other words...einstein equals man crap squared.
they only reason he was given absolute trust in the west at the time is because he got credit for inventing the big bomb and even proposed floating into tokyo harbor to inflict maximum damage. so he made the politicians happy and therefore you find his name in the history books, and not Nikoli Tesla, the greatest scientiest the world has known as we know it.

 

Einstein changed the way we looked a the world. I think the fact that his work was first used to make a big bomb says more about us as a race than him as a person. Nikola Tesla was more of an Engineer than a scientist, he didnt really add any fundamental knowledge to his field (though Maxwell didnt really leave much left, until the 20's changed everything). He was possibly the first and greatest electrical engineer. Though Tesla was though to be working on some kind of weapon based on lightning in his later years. He also claimed to have developed a grand unified theory given that we didnt know all the fundamental forces then it seem unlikely.

 

Our cultural world view of time and space is often taken as apriory fact and used to support whatever arguement one is biased towards. Since Einstien this view is not as limited as before, but this does not mean that it is proven truth. There is much evidence that the Big Bang did not "happen", and the universe quite possibly can not be rightly said to have had a beginning. It seems to me that scientific materialism is the dominant religion of Western culture. It has its dogma, its saints, its irrationalities and paradoxes like any other religious belief system. Like them it is also marvellously internally coherent, each belief supporting and reinforcing the others. Whether it is a valid path to the ultimate truth is open to argument.

 

The scientific method insists that all "truth" remains open to question, and does not attempt to make any claims about anything which is not observable and measurable. That's how it differs from religion. Two pretty important differences.

The question always remains "why is there anything at all" but that's not something science even attempts to approach - the question itself is unintelligible if you're interested in logical proof based on observed phenomena.

 

Uhhh, no. Lol. You're pretty stupid. No offense.

 

You're an idiot. No, seriously, you are. You haven't done any research (as made obvious by your posts) and are just spouting nonsense.

Einstein was against the use of the atomic bomb. Either way, the vast majority of sociopolitical scientists agree that the atomic bomb decreased the number of people that died in WWII. Why? Because the Japanese people would have fought until they all died. Look at the marine invasions of small islands off the main island of Japan.

Also, the two scientists mainly given credit are Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi. You're pretty stupid, like I said before.

 

Some of the main advocates for and popularises of the dubious theory of the Big Bang have been well aware of the theological implications of their work. And their tenacity in arguing its virtues was inspired by their need to validate a cosmology that in its fundamental priciples allowed for the metaphorical parrallels of Christian creationism. In particular, one of the original forms of the theory was proposed by a young Belgian cosmologist and priest, one Georges-Henri Lemaitre. In 1931 he presented his theory of a 'primeval atom", based primarily upon such evidence as the newly discovered red shift of the galaxies, the second law of thermodynamics, and the mysterious origin of cosmic rays.


I find it disconcerting that so many progressive thinkers appear to use this fairy tale called the Big Bang to give some kind of scientific authority to their insights into the nature of reality. They seem to think that the Big Bang is a new and progressive description of reality, when quite possibly it is no more than the last throes of a very limiting thought system.

 

i'm glad to see that you did your research lapping up all the available dog water in the almost barren information well attainable from trusting "official" reports and "scholarly" history books. you're so not stupid, according to official reports! and really, mix up the insults a little bit, your repeated usage of the same old lame line is really quite a bore!
now, on a "stupider" note... it's amazing how similar to modern day scientists politicians are. politicians have their own scientific method called "cover and run". it distills well into all their favorite past time...provoking disinformation war and covering their own asses.
i have in fact done my research, but i am not here to waste a bunch of space on a lame brain such as einstein. or bring to light how much nobody knows about Tesla. it just saddens me how violently people react to free thought based on actual facts and independant thinking, not to mention cutting edge discoveries which are proving traditional thinkers such as einstein wrong as quick as the u.s. is getting it's kids killed to do it's dirty work. business as usual. and you actually trust these people? who's stupider?

 

god i love touching nerves in people. yes, you are indeed alive! halelujah,
remember when it was ok to tar and feather a politician when it was necessary. it was good practice to stay informed on your world....and attend town meetings to keep everything irelated to your niche in order.
now adays you are only a patriot if you agree with every word that comes out of some dumb assholes senators son mouth. there is the conclusion to the scientific theory.