The Big-Bang theory demolished in three easy steps | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 26820407 United States 12/08/2012 04:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
aliensbro User ID: 29143420 United States 12/08/2012 04:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Panhead User ID: 26383292 United States 12/08/2012 04:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28811763 United States 12/08/2012 04:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
aliensbro User ID: 29143420 United States 12/08/2012 04:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually, somethingness can be created from nothingness. Matter and anti-matter split from nothingness. They are the exact opposite of each other. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28811763 Which negate each other ending with a sum of 0/neutral. For anti-matter to exist, matter must exist. Your post is irrelevant, where does the matter come from initially? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24312935 Canada 12/08/2012 04:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Observer (OP) User ID: 29360714 Canada 12/08/2012 04:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually, somethingness can be created from nothingness. Matter and anti-matter split from nothingness. They are the exact opposite of each other. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28811763 By all means , please show Logically How Somethingness 'splits ' out and appears of no-where ( since Nothingness , by definition , it doesn't Actually exists hence you can not establish a Point of Spliting-of ... ) . Here is the above presented in Steps ( for ease of troubleshooting ) : 1) Nothigness does not exist 2) Hence you can not establish an ' Action Starting Point ' within Nothingness |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 20533291 United States 12/08/2012 05:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 29360714 Canada 12/08/2012 05:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Op is. Correct Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20533291 as if the Big Bang theory is to be possible it would violate the laws of thermodynamics ... remember the pun ' which part of Nothingness you don't understand ? ' as the cure to all ill-logicals :) Great , that was easy ! Now what ? What consequences should we expect ? Refund on my church and political donations ? Go ahead , tell me more ... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28811763 United States 12/08/2012 05:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually, somethingness can be created from nothingness. Matter and anti-matter split from nothingness. They are the exact opposite of each other. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28811763 By all means , please show Logically How Somethingness 'splits ' out and appears of no-where ( since Nothingness , by definition , it doesn't Actually exists hence you can not establish a Point of Spliting-of ... ) . Here is the above presented in Steps ( for ease of troubleshooting ) : 1) Nothigness does not exist 2) Hence you can not establish an ' Action Starting Point ' within Nothingness The definition of "nothingness" in our Universe includes a state of the combination of matter and anti-matter. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28811763 United States 12/08/2012 05:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually, somethingness can be created from nothingness. Matter and anti-matter split from nothingness. They are the exact opposite of each other. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28811763 Which negate each other ending with a sum of 0/neutral. For anti-matter to exist, matter must exist. Your post is irrelevant, where does the matter come from initially? Matter comes from anti-matter splitting from it. My post isn't irrelevant simply because you can't make a logical train of thought. Just because something is a sum 0 doesn't make it irrelevant. That's like saying E=mc^2 isn't relevant to matter/energy conversion because it's a sum of zero. |
- User ID: 29002615 United States 12/08/2012 06:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1513449 Canada 12/08/2012 06:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 15472 United States 12/08/2012 06:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1103018 United Kingdom 12/08/2012 06:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1498833 Canada 12/08/2012 06:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually, somethingness can be created from nothingness. Matter and anti-matter split from nothingness. They are the exact opposite of each other. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28811763 Which negate each other ending with a sum of 0/neutral. For anti-matter to exist, matter must exist. Your post is irrelevant, where does the matter come from initially? Actually, somethingness can be created from nothingness. Matter and anti-matter split from nothingness. They are the exact opposite of each other. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28811763 Which negate each other ending with a sum of 0/neutral. For anti-matter to exist, matter must exist. Your post is irrelevant, where does the matter come from initially? Where does the nothingness come from initially? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1617215 United States 12/08/2012 06:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 29250945 Australia 12/08/2012 07:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9094168 United Kingdom 12/08/2012 08:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | For starters and for your Confidence of not wasting your time , the UPN proves that an exploding/enlarging point creating the Universe some 3.8 Billion years ago as the Big Bang theory claims , is incorrect . How hard it is to prove it being wrong ? Quoting: Observer 29360714 1) Nothing can be created from Nothingness ( or , Somethingness can not be created from Nothingness ) 2) the # 1 statement is true since for-ever , since Eternity , since an infinite time ( never was possible to make Something from Nothing ) Your argument fails right there: the big bang theory DOES NOT say there was NOTHING. It merely states there was an incy wincy tiny spec of matter. Next: you havent defined NOTHING. what is Nothing? Have you ever seen NOTHING ? |
Observer User ID: 7550272 Canada 12/09/2012 12:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | For starters and for your Confidence of not wasting your time , the UPN proves that an exploding/enlarging point creating the Universe some 3.8 Billion years ago as the Big Bang theory claims , is incorrect . How hard it is to prove it being wrong ? Quoting: Observer 29360714 1) Nothing can be created from Nothingness ( or , Somethingness can not be created from Nothingness ) 2) the # 1 statement is true since for-ever , since Eternity , since an infinite time ( never was possible to make Something from Nothing ) Your argument fails right there: the big bang theory DOES NOT say there was NOTHING. It merely states there was an incy wincy tiny spec of matter. Next: you havent defined NOTHING. what is Nothing? Have you ever seen NOTHING ? " .... Big Bang Theory - The Premise The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. ... " .... [link to www.big-bang-theory.com] HA , ha , ha , ha , ha , ..... ( European 'LOL' ) Here : 1) at the 'begining' it was a 'incy wincy tiny spec ' ( LOL ) among ... WHAT ??? Nothingness ? You just contradicted yourself by saying that Nothingness can exist ( around that tiny wincy thingi as you put it ) . 2) OK , that speaks Volumes about your motives when you question what Nothingness is . Go to Wikipedia and see how the absence of anything is described in English . BUT , can you Prove that Nothingness can not exist ? I did , but first show me yours ... Any more questions , please ? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 29395313 United Kingdom 12/09/2012 01:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
CaylinSoo User ID: 1146726 United States 12/09/2012 01:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Observer User ID: 7550272 Canada 12/09/2012 01:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Before the Big Bang time did not exist. Time is only a by product of the universe. That is why it has a finite age. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24312935 Yup. Before it only probability fields existed in flux. That stirs the question about What is the flux made of and its properties , never mind When it did came about into existence . But before that , in all fairness , please point to any errors in the logic below , because if you can not than the Age of the Universe doesn't really has a number , it's infinite . I know , it takes a while to get used to the Feel but Otherway we would have to accept that Something can be made from Nothing ... I rather accept the imaculate logic and an infinite Universe instead : 1) Nothing can be created from Nothingness ( or , Somethingness can not be created from Nothingness ) 2) the # 1 statement is true since for-ever , since Eternity , since an infinite time ( never was possible to make Something from Nothing ) 3) Hence the Age of Somethingness ( the Universe included ) is also Eternity , infinite time . QED As I asked before , can you deduce another Major property of the Universe from those three steps ? It has to do with the Size of the Universe ... |
Observer User ID: 7550272 Canada 12/09/2012 02:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | For starters and for your Confidence of not wasting your time , the UPN proves that an exploding/enlarging point creating the Universe some 3.8 Billion years ago as the Big Bang theory claims , is incorrect . How hard it is to prove it being wrong ? Quoting: Observer 29360714 1) Nothing can be created from Nothingness ( or , Somethingness can not be created from Nothingness ) 2) the # 1 statement is true since for-ever , since Eternity , since an infinite time ( never was possible to make Something from Nothing ) 3) Hence the Age of Somethingness ( the Universe included ) is also Eternity , infinite time . QED Therefore is clear that our Universe could not possibly have an age , never mind the puny 4 Billion years as , amazingly , accepted by the scientific establishment today via the Big-Bang theory ! Right , all that ga-ga demolished in three easy logic steps , a Promising event that , as the clock said , it took me two minutes to conceive BTW , do You see the other major conclusion emerging from those easy three logic steps besides the age of the Universe ? Hint : its about its Size ( all explained logically in the UPN , step by logic step , no guessing ) . As you can see , Logic alone is the most powerful tool , never needing instruments , math or experiments , being immune to our own limitations including senses and being able to Explain and Deduce ALL that it can be in the Universe , and all this for a very simple reason yet Absolutely powerful : the Universe itself is 100 % Logic . See how the UPN uses simple logic steps to guide us into understanding the Simplicity of nature , including the fact that us and all are made of a SuperFluid ( a realization achieved also by scientists Grigory Volovik and Huang , each releasing the papers The SuperFluid Universe ) . Yes , thank you , the 3.8 and 4 should read 13.8 and 14 Billion years , my fault sorry . In this infinity , as they say , a monkey typing at random will eventually not only write at least once all the Shakespearean plays but will also write an ... improved version . Imagine than what Controlled scientific research can do in the same time . |
Observer User ID: 7550272 Canada 12/09/2012 03:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 29397336 United Kingdom 12/09/2012 03:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Observer User ID: 7550272 Canada 12/09/2012 04:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Your second link was interesting. The guys at Thunderbolts.info have comprehensively falsified the Red Shift and Cosmic Microwave Background arguments, so Mr. "AngryAstronomer" is arguing on false premises. That's one reason why I send the UPN theory only by request . Nevertheless , the presented three easy steps are proof that something politically incorect is taking place ... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2035653 Croatia 12/09/2012 04:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 1) Nothing can be created from Nothingness ( or , Somethingness can not be created from Nothingness ) Quoting: Observer 29360714 Then how was Jesus created? Immaculate conception is something from nothing. So, something from nothing is possible. So the big bang is not impossible. actually no,becuase God is energy and energy transforms into matter |
Observer User ID: 7493354 Canada 12/09/2012 09:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 1) Nothing can be created from Nothingness ( or , Somethingness can not be created from Nothingness ) Quoting: Observer 29360714 Then how was Jesus created? Immaculate conception is something from nothing. So, something from nothing is possible. So the big bang is not impossible. actually .... Are you sure you are talking about the TV Show ? |
aliensbro User ID: 29442233 United States 12/10/2012 01:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 1) Nothing can be created from Nothingness ( or , Somethingness can not be created from Nothingness ) Quoting: Observer 29360714 Then how was Jesus created? Immaculate conception is something from nothing. So, something from nothing is possible. So the big bang is not impossible. actually no,becuase God is energy and energy transforms into matter No, matter is transformed into energy/vise versa. For energy to exist matter must have existed to create it, and for matter to exist, energy must've existed. It's kinda like which came first the chicken or the egg, but neither the chicken or the egg could have existed. Atleast due to current mainstream understanding of the universe. |