Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A lot of views (not just 2 or 3), and I wonder if you were thinking of the old steady state idea, or instead this (much more plausible) interesting newer one:There is the alternate view. An infinite universe with no beginning or end.
That was the commonest view before the red shift was discovered. It's pretty well dead now. The newer one, with zero evidence is for a pulsating universe which bangs then contracts then bangs and contracts endlessly.There is the alternate view. An infinite universe with no beginning or end.
Oh, there are a lot of newer theories to compete with the plain vanilla big bang/inflation model.That was the commonest view before the red shift was discovered. It's pretty well dead now. The newer one, with zero evidence is for a pulsating universe which bangs then contracts then bangs and contracts endlessly.
I apologise for lack of clarity in my posts. To be clear, I was not suggesting, would never suggest, never have suggested and abhor the suggestion that man is all knowing. The reverse is true. However man - with an intellect gifted by God, if you believe in God - has demonstrated the ability through commitment, logic, observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and other forms of testing, to gain deep insights into the nature of the universe.When it comes to the creation of the universe I'll just keep an open mind and not to take all knowing mans word for it.
No. I said to reject the findings of thousands of scientists who have actually investigated the matter is foolish, pointless and irrelevant.Oh and thanks for calling my thoughts foolish, pointless and irrelevant. Very kind of you.
Can you elaborate on these grounds? ThanksI seriously dislike the notion of the Big Bang on philosophical grounds
I apologise for lack of clarity in my posts. To be clear, I was not suggesting, would never suggest, never have suggested and abhor the suggestion that man is all knowing. The reverse is true. However man - with an intellect gifted by God, if you believe in God - has demonstrated the ability through commitment, logic, observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and other forms of testing, to gain deep insights into the nature of the universe.
There are three broad categories associated with the Big Bang Theory
1. Big Bang Theory itself. A theory that has thus far passed every test, is acknowledged as by far the most probable explanation for a vast range of observations by thousands of scientists directly involved in such research, and by tens of thousands more with sufficient education to evaluate their findings.
2. There are handful of speculations and minor hypotheses that lack substantial support and are generally refuted, or at least contradicted by one or more established findings.
3. There are fanciful explanations lacking detail, evidence, support, logic or any form of validation, promoted by individuals with no training, or natural ability in the application of the scientific method.
Now which of these categories of explanation would make sense to you?
Let me put it another way. Imagine you have a serious medical condition that requires surgery. Do you
1. Go to an established surgeon at a well run, up-to date, professionally equipped hospital?
2. Go to a pre-med student who dropped out of college, but says he has some books on the subject.
3. Go to the neighbourhood car mechanic who says he is pretty sure there is nothing wrong with you.
It seems you favour Option 3 in at least the first instance.
No. I said to reject the findings of thousands of scientists who have actually investigated the matter is foolish, pointless and irrelevant.
Irrelevant, because your rejection of Big Bang Theory will not change reality.
Pointless, because your rejection of Big Bang Theory will be ignored by those who are properly informed about the theory.
Foolish, because it is Option 3 in the examples presented above. Do you really want me to praise you for ignoring the work of thousands of intelligent, committed, sincere, hard working individuals just because it doesn't sit well with you? Do you really think I should say that such an action on your part is a sensible one? Do you truly want me to lie to you and pretend your rejection is sound? I don't do lies. Not on something this important.
Calling them philosophical reasons was probably rather pompous. It's more a case that I just don't like the concept; it doesn't appeal to me. This viewpoint is indistinguishable from the rejection of the theory by @Mantishand , with one exception: I acknowledge that the rejection of the idea, because I don't like it, is foolish, pointless and irrelevant. Consequently I accept that Big Bang Theory is the best current explanation for our observations.Can you elaborate on these grounds? Thanks
I am sorry you have chosen to leave. You lose the opportunity to add to your knowledge.Meh, my mechanic is pretty good. I'll have him change the battery in my spinal cord stimulator. Probably cheaper than my nero-surgeon. Because I'm that stupid. I'm bowing out of this thread, tired of insults.
Hello, I`ve been thinking a little about it, when everything cooled afte the big-bang, shouldn`t everything look kinda scorched after the explosion to begin With, I find it a little strange, is there any other theory out there than this one?
At this point of my near-death experience, I found myself in a profound stillness, beyond all silence. I could see or perceive FOREVER, beyond Infinity. I was in the Void.
I was in pre creation, before the Big Bang. I had crossed over the beginning of time / the First Word / the First vibration. I was in the Eye of Creation. I felt as if I was touching the Face of God. It was not a religious feeling. Simply, I was at one with Absolute Life and Consciousness. When I say that I could see or perceive forever, I mean that I could experience all of creation generating itself. It was without beginning and without end. That’s a mind-expanding thought, isn’t it? Scientists perceive the Big Bang as a single event that created the Universe. I saw during my life after death experience that the Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating Universes endlessly and simultaneously. The only images that even come close in human terms would be those created by super computers using fractal geometry equations.
The ancients knew of this. They said God had periodically created new Universes by breathing out, and recreated other Universes by breathing in. These epochs were called Yugas. Modern science called this the Big Bang. I was in absolute, pure consciousness. I could see or perceive all the Big Bangs or Yugas creating and recreating themselves. Instantly I entered into them all simultaneously. I saw that each and every little piece of creation has the power to create. It is very difficult to try to explain this. I am still speechless about this.
Hello, I`ve been thinking a little about it, when everything cooled afte the big-bang, shouldn`t everything look kinda scorched after the explosion to begin With, I find it a little strange, is there any other theory out there than this one?
I apologise for lack of clarity in my posts. To be clear, I was not suggesting, would never suggest, never have suggested and abhor the suggestion that man is all knowing. The reverse is true. However man - with an intellect gifted by God, if you believe in God - has demonstrated the ability through commitment, logic, observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and other forms of testing, to gain deep insights into the nature of the universe.
There are three broad categories associated with the Big Bang Theory
1. Big Bang Theory itself. A theory that has thus far passed every test,
is acknowledged as by far the most probable explanation for a vast range of observations by thousands of scientists directly involved in such research, and by tens of thousands more with sufficient education to evaluate their findings.
Michael, I shall readily concede that this is one of the few threads in which your injection of your views on the errors of Big Bang Theory (BBT) is actually on topic. However, I have zero interest of continuing a dialogue with you on the topic, unless and until:Um, no. Thus far it's *failed* more so called "tests" than it's ever actually "passed". The last major fail of the big bang model brought us 'dark energy' and that claim has also failed another recent "test".
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html
Dark matter models have failed every single laboratory "test" to date.
It's also failed lots of observational tests. The universe is far more "mature" in the distant universe than the BB model predicts.
Mature Galaxies in Young Universe At Odds with Theory
The big bang model is even internally self conflicted, with different "measurements" providing different results.
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-crisis-cosmology-universe-rapidly-believed.html
In reality, the BB models the single *least* successful theory in physics when it comes to passing any "tests".
Except for the aforementioned *glaring* problems.
Michael, I shall readily concede that this is one of the few threads in which your injection of your views on the errors of Big Bang Theory (BBT) is actually on topic. However, I have zero interest of continuing a dialogue with you on the topic, unless and until:
If you choose to respond to this post with anything other than an agreement to each of these points I shall understand that you have no intention of introducing courtesy to your forum posts and shall remove those posts from my sight.
- You stop polluting other members' threads with your views on BBT
- You concede that this pollution is against the spirit, if not the letter of forum rules
- You acknowledge that it is most certainly discourteous and a breach of internet etiquette
No. I said to reject the findings of thousands of scientists who have actually investigated the matter is foolish, pointless and irrelevant.
I acknowledge that the rejection of the idea, because I don't like it, is foolish, pointless and irrelevant. Consequently I accept that Big Bang Theory is the best current explanation for our observations.
Just missed!I saw some burnt tree trunks on my bike ride. Thought it might have been from the big bang, but then I found out there had been a forest fire.
Surely you cannot be serious?Hello, I`ve been thinking a little about it, when everything cooled afte the big-bang, shouldn`t everything look kinda scorched after the explosion to begin With, I find it a little strange, is there any other theory out there than this one?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?