[_ Old Earth _] no big bang

[Adam]

NO FORMAL UNIVERSE:


As already proposed in the old big bang thread, let’s start with the very title of the standard model.

Well, sorry for you big bang fans, but the title contradicts both itself and the content.

.

Ignoratio elenchi

 

[Adam]

THE FUNNY STORY OF a AND b:


I was interested WHEN dark energy, within formal cosmology, took a grip on things (you’ll see why in a second). So I found out what appears to be the mainstream answer: about nine billions years ago…

When I saw that, I immediately started to laugh. Big time. For about half an hour. Do you know why? Well, think about the claimed age of the earth…

Did you get it? If not: think about 2 specks of dust, A and B, desperately trying to come together and form what will eventually be a planet. And the conditions are EXTREMELY NOT favorable. A shouts to B: “give me your hand! let’s stick together! there will be billions of people counting on us! they will really love evolution!†B tries that frantically, but the space between them irrevocably expands, drifting them further apart.

And the situation gets even more desperate with time… So billions of years (if true), far from proving cosmic evolution, would actually be FURTHER proof AGAINST evolution. In the context of dark energy, billions of years are exactly what YOU DON’T WANT…

And the funny thing is that even WITHOUT dark energy (accelerated expansion), the simple expansion is PROOF AGAINST cosmic evolution. The space between A and B will expand no matter if expansion is accelerated, constant or decelerated. They will simply NEVER get together to form ANYTHING. Let alone an entire planet…

Thus, no cosmic evolution. NONE. Even the very TITLE of YOUR cosmology is PROOF in that regard. Really no other evidence required.


Further, what was claimed as evidence for big bang (the expansion), is actually INDISPUTABLE PROOF AGAINST big bang: simply because of its acceleration (expansion should have been DECELERATING if big bang was true…). So again, the VERY TITLE of formal cosmological model thoroughly and irrevocably DISPROVES the content (the very same cosmology). Tell me, how ironic is that?

Argument from incredulity

 

[Adam]

NO GENIUS OF MANKIND:


Let’s move over to other things within formal cosmology. What’s its technical describer? Einstein’s relativity. Is Einstein’s relativity true? Let’s see.

Start with artificial satellites proving Einstein wrong:
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_1843.pdf

[ GPS is the only REAL thing claimed by evolutionists in support of Einstein. All of Einstein’s “science†is theoretical, except (as claimed) GPS. How much of an irony is then that GPS actually disproves Einstein? ]

[ In another of his papers, Hatch proves wrong a fundamental principle of general relativity: acceleration indistinguishable from gravity. So there you are, yet again left without Einstein, even taking a different avenue. Which means you don’t have your universe anymore either…]


Then move to natural satellites proving both Newton and Einstein wrong:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212

(and yet they are both still taught in schools, while every night, actually all the time, the Moon tells a different story !)


Then move to large scale things contradicting homogeneity (for example cosmic voids, really HUGE),

then move to large scale formations with movement that clearly contradicts any “natural law†you can think of (for example dark flow - only this and it’s enough to throw mainstream cosmology away)…

Well, I’m sure you can take it from here, can’t you?

argumentum ad auctoritatem

 

[Adam]

A GAME OF IMAGINATION:


Speaking of dark flow, do you know what explanation they ALWAYS (each and every time) bring when this Universe proves them wrong? Yes, other universes…

No surprise then, since they’ve believed for so long they are in a balloon, that they eventually started imagining multiple bubble universes (or strings, or whatever)…

Why does this universe look as if it was tuned precisely for mankind? Well, you know, there are multiple universes out there, and this is only one of them, and the others look differently…

How could life come from non-life? Well, you know, there are an INFINITE number of universes out there, and thus the chances of life appearing from non-life are suddenly not zero…

Why does gravity NOT work in this universe? Well, you know, there are multiple universes out there, and somehow this compensates for the extreme weakness of gravity in this universe…

(meanwhile THIS universe is of course taught in schools as being gravitational…)


Why does the micro (quantum) contradict the macro (especially GR)? Well, if one simply starts imagining other universes, a theory of everything is not far off…

Do they really call all this science? Yes, they do. Well, they obviously didn’t hear about Occam’s razor. Now THAT’s indeed science…

Strawman
Sweeping generalization

 

[Adam]

CONTINUING THE ENDLESS JOURNEY OF FABRICATING THINGS:


Didn’t you notice what the “scientist†with the paper about the Moon did? What was his reaction, when he found out that the Moon contradicts both Newton & Einstein? Did he think about throwing the theories of those fellows in the trash? No. He instead FABRICATED an entire planet in the solar system… Which nobody (not even him) can see. And even that DIDN’T WORK…

This is their entire cosmological “scienceâ€: a FABRICATION process…

What do they do when the Universe shows gravity wrong? They fabricate 5 times more matter to make it work. But does THEN work? No, they MUST further tune things, like WIMPs, to make gravity work. But does THEN work? No, they MUST fabricate a multitude of OTHER UNIVERSES to “explain†why it DOESN’T work….

Do they call this science? Yes, they do. They even teach it in schools…

Do they believe we all are in the bi-dimensional surface of a balloon? Yes, they do. Well, what does that say about THEM?

But why would they say that, in the first place? Well, they MUST claim it, otherwise a very different cosmology becomes true... (you’ll be very surprised which one!)

Sweeping generalization
Strawman
ad hom



When are you going to actually talk about the big bang?

 

[Adam]

SO HOW IS THE UNIVERSE, AFTER ALL?


Big bang supporters, your universe should be (mandatory) isotropic and homogeneous. However, some observations contradict that. Not only huge (VERY huge) cosmic voids, but also peculiar velocities, and so on. Therefore, the Cosmological principle is just another one in an endless series of EMPTY claims.

When you have to FABRICATE 95.5% of the entire Universe to either “explain†observations or to make it look as if your laws work (instead of throwing them away and finding others), then something is very wrong with formal science. One thing for sure: IT’S NOT SCIENCE. Instead, it’s IMAGINATION. Nothing more than wishful thinking.

Moreover, the rest of the universe (the REAL matter) is mostly, BY FAR, plasma, not solid matter… (why don’t you find by yourselves what BY FAR actually means…)

And this “fabrication†process is COMMON in formal cosmology. No matter what they do, they will never throw away their precious theories. Instead they’ll keep fabricating things to make them (appear to) work…

But how is the REAL universe? Well, for one, throw gravity away (both gravitation & gravity, i.e. Newton & Einstein). But does that mean that the universe is electric (plasmic)? Well, not in the sense of Halton Arp’s. That particular cosmology is also wrong. To be exact: no, it doesn’t mean that the universe is NECESSARILY electric, it only means that an electric universe is BY FAR a more rational (and scientific!) premise than a gravitational universe…

Certainly (even mainstream admits this) electromagnetism is MUCH (by orders of magnitude !!) stronger than gravity. And how is it that the WEAKEST FORCE in the Universe (even by THEIR recognition) is claimed as the strongest (since they claim a gravitational universe)?

So, how is the Universe after all? Well, let’s keep that for another thread (the Biblical cosmology), shall we?

Still ad homming and strawmanning.


I should remind you, yet again, the topic is "No Big Bang." Do you have anything to say on THAT subject?

 

[Adam]

ALWAYS USE YOUR OWN MIND (and hands!) TO VERIFY MAINSTREAM CLAIMS:


Why don’t you make a simple experiment: take a piece of paper and a thing of plastic (like your comb, or whatever). Put the paper on the table. Now rub the comb a bit, and then get it close to the paper. What will you see? That the electricity is MUCH STRONGER than gravitation. Magnets will show that too (using instead a piece of metal).

So there you are, claiming that the universe is gravitational, while REALITY shows an entirely different thing: your mighty gravitation can’t keep the paper on the table when a small, VERY SMALL (static) electricity gets close… So tell me again how colossal is gravitation/gravity. Tell me again how planets are kept in orbit by it. Tell me again how the entire universe is gravitational and obeys Newton & Einstein…

Yet again, MAINSTREAM CLAIMS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY. Keep this in mind: whenever you hear mainstreamers claiming something, you should immediately think of the opposite, and you’ll be FAR CLOSER to the truth.

Do you hear billions of years? Immediately you should think of thousands…

Do they claim the cosmic space is empty (void)? Immediately you should think it’s not empty (at all !), and even that it’s more like a solid…

And you know what? You’ll actually be ENTIRELY right… Here:

“It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that SPACE IS MORE LIKE A PIECE OF WINDOW GLASS than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.â€

Robert Laughlin, “A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Downâ€, 2005, p. 120 (my emphasis)
also quoted here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories



Now, surely you wouldn’t want to contradict the 1993 Nobel laureate in physics, would you? I mean, isn’t this the kind of authority you bow to?

But why exactly did I even bother with that quote? Isn’t the very name of YOUR cosmology shouting out that space is NOT empty? And isn’t dark energy more than 70% of YOUR entire universe? And isn’t dark energy ANTIgravitational? So why exactly would they ‘teach†you Newton & Einstein? And how COULD there have appeared the conditions for a single planet to get together and form itself, in the background of a powerful antigravitational “thing†pulling EVERYTHING APART? So much for cosmic evolution…

Contextomy.
Irrelevant conclusion
Strawman



Do you even understand that you are not addressing the BB theory whatsoever?

 

[Adam]

HOW FAR THE STARS REALLY ARE?


?

Off topic

 

[Adam]

A CENTURY OLD THEORY OF EVERYTHING:


Mainstream is so desperate to unify micro with macro that I won’t be surprised if they will give, to the physicist doing that, the Nobel prize - FOR A HUNDRED YEARS IN A ROW…

…

Off topic.
Strawman
Ad Hom
Poisoning the Well

 

[Adam]

Really this comes down to an attack on an invisible bogeyman..."them."


Whomever "they" are, whether you want to call "them" the "mainstream" or something else, is an unidentified party that you are making invalid and fabricated claims against and that you haven't provided one shred of evidence for in an exhausted sweeping genralization.


You really have nothing to say about the big bang. You haven't bothered in your walls-of-text to mention the theory enough that we can assess that you even know what the theory is/what it's premises are. You are chasing dragons and attacking claims no one ever made about subjects that have nothing to do with what you claimed your purpose was.


BY DEFINTION, this entire ordeal has been nothing but a Gish Gallop.

 

[Narwhalist]

Respectfully, you must have a lot of time on your hands.

 

[Adam]

Gish gallop.

Easy enough to Google up a search on this one. Thanks for teaching me a term. A technique of "Starting ten fires in ten minutes,"

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

More often it comes down to starting 50 fires in 5 minutes. The readymade, copy/paste arguments are the worst and the problem with them gets worse once the quote button comes into play. It is best not to address the claims made specifically, but to spot the inherent fallacies. That avoids the mess getting worse and becoming a neverending tromp of new claims and challenges to those claims.


Really, it is easy to determine that there probably isn't going to be a great argument anywhere in those 15 posts when the opening claim was "The Big Bang theory is wrong because it's name is a misnomer." Then it just comes down to skimming through and looking to see if, at what point, he ever addresses the actual theory. He doesn't. He attacks biological evolution and the theory of everything. He attacks Einstein. But he never takes on the big bang. The cosmology that he does talk about boils down to a series of ad homs against "mainstream."


Waste of bandwith.

 

[alex_ro]

Adam,

Isn’t it ironic that you, who claim science is on your side, so far you have showed NONE? And you who claim logic is on your side, yet again so far you have showed NONE?

I’m sure that you don’t even know your OWN cosmology, because of some things that you say, like this:

HOW FAR THE STARS REALLY ARE?

?

Off topic

If you can’t tell the ESSENTIAL role the stellar distances have in YOUR cosmology, no surprise that you don’t even know YOUR OWN cosmology… As you clearly showed here:

He attacks Einstein. But he never takes on the big bang.

and here:

When are you going to actually talk about the big bang?

I should remind you, yet again, the topic is "No Big Bang." Do you have anything to say on THAT subject?

Adam, this ENTIRE THREAD is about big bang – not that you would notice…

Do you even understand that you are not addressing the BB theory whatsoever?

Do you even understand that in this thread I’m ONLY addressing big bang cosmology?

Whomever "they" are, whether you want to call "them" the "mainstream" or something else

Yes, by “them” I’ve meant mainstream.

is an unidentified party that you are making invalid and fabricated claims against

Prove it. Take your time, and prove it, not just claim it.

and that you haven't provided one shred of evidence for in an exhausted sweeping genralization.

This thread IS FULL OF EVIDENCE. Not that you’d be able to see…

You haven't bothered in your walls-of-text to mention the theory enough that we can assess that you even know what the theory is/what it's premises are.

Thank you for admitting you have no idea in what you believe. But then, why exactly would you believe in it?

BY DEFINTION, this entire ordeal has been nothing but a Gish Gallop.

You’re accurately describing YOUR own posts…

the opening claim was "The Big Bang theory is wrong because it's name is a misnomer."

I never made that claim. It’s obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about. But then why exactly would you be talking about it? And why exactly would you believe in it?

He attacks biological evolution

Trust me, you really don’t want me to attack biological evolution.

and the theory of everything

Further PROOF that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. Because, according to the mainstream that you believe in, there is no theory of everything…



Bottom line: tell you what, Adam. I’m offering you a chance to prove me wrong and you right. So take this opportunity and present what you call "The Big Bang theory”, or rather what you understand by it, and it will be my pleasure to prove it wrong. Let's see if you indeed know what you're talking about. Of course, when I’m done, I expect you to NOT believe in it anymore, because that would be the ONLY RATIONAL THING to do, wouldn’t you agree?

So, waiting.

 

[Adam]

according to the mainstream that you believe in, there is no theory of everything…



Bottom line: tell you what, Adam. I’m offering you a chance to prove me wrong and you right. So take this opportunity and present what you call "The Big Bang theory”, or rather what you understand by it, and it will be my pleasure to prove it wrong. Let's see if you indeed know what you're talking about. Of course, when I’m done, I expect you to NOT believe in it anymore, because that would be the ONLY RATIONAL THING to do, wouldn’t you agree?

You haven't even defined "mainstream." You are strawmanning by claiming that "mainstream" is something I believe in. I don't, because I don't even know what you mean by the word.

I'm also not going to take on the burden of proof. This is your thread. You claimed that you could disprove the big bang. You have failed to do that.

The only rational thing to do is to follow the evidence. Since you have none, it would not be logical to believe you.


And I don't know what you are waiting on. It is your responsibility to provide the evidence for your claim. Not mine to provide evidence against your claim. I don't have to make a counter-argument until you make an argument first.


An argument consists of a claim AND evidence.


All you have is a bunch of unreleated and irrelevant claims.

 

[reba]

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.


These forums are not a place for personal battles, Please take the personal jabs to PM. Thank you, moderator

 

[alex_ro]

Matthew G and Vaccine, I was honored to have met you. Stay strong in your faith. Never let the word of men corrupt the Word of God, for there is one and one salvation alone: the Word of God. Instead, the word of men leads to perdition. It has always happened like that, even more so now, in the end times.

So, stay strong until the very end, and hopefully we’ll see each other at the feet of our Lord Jesus Christ…

 

[Vaccine]

Thank you for sharing all this information. I accepted the big bang because I was lead to believe it was a sure thing, now I know otherwise. I feel blessed to have met you as well and am sure we will be seeing more of each other.

 

[Adam]

Acceptance of the big bang is not a corruption of the word of God.

Of course, that's the real purpose of this thread. I believe that the OP doesn't have an issue with the BB, specifically, but more generally, would reject ANY model of the universe that doesn't hypothesize a 6,000 year creation period.

This boils down to a cognitive bias known as "expectant-observer" fallacy. In this case alex-ro expects that the model should be confined to a 6000 year period and rejects all evidence to the contrary.

In other words, draw conclusions and then filter out all explanations or evidence that do not lead to that conclusion.


This has nothing to do with science. It has to do with personal interpretation and selective perception.