Wondering if my "Matthew Slepitza's" theory of the big bang could be correct?

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

You give it 25% and have subsequently posted pages and pages of posts claiming that it never happened.

     FTWW not everything with the Big Bang story is fake - the discovery of the particles in the QMs is real, notwithstanding that it has little to do with any Big Bang. The red shift in the light is real. The CMB is real - the circumstance that they are misinterpreted to infinity and patched here and there at random, all of a sudden, and out of nowhere, is another issue. Some of the processes around the Singularity might be true as well, but hardly operating in reverse and without causality. The problem of the Big Bang 'theory' is actually in itself as a theory. Any process can be expressed in words - this is called general semantics of the language. If you have a 'process' or a 'theory' (its formal representation) that cannot be expressed in words - the question is whether that 'process' has existed, is existing, or is able to exist at all.
     Actually both the Religion and the Cosmology desperately need each other, for otherwise they will hardly be able to exist.
     Honestly speaking both the Religion and the Big Bang 'theory' turned out to be constructive driving forces in terms of our self-awareness. This dispute will never end unless the truth is found.
     What happened with the unanswered question: which is the greatest achievement of the present day science?

2 Replies

@Herald,

So, now you want me to defend a video that I haven't seen and based on your general pattern of prevaricating probably doesn't say what you are claiming.

Since you simply define things incorrectly repeatedly and dodge other questions your argument is continually falling apart.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

The red shift in the light is real. The CMB is real

So they are real and you simply discount the explanations with the most evidence while providing no evidence in support of any other explanation.

You have unicorns in your butt. I see no reason to give any explanation of evidence. Now, it is up to you to defend why you have unicorns in that orifice. What medium is keeping them there?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
You give it 25% and have subsequently posted pages and pages of posts claiming that it never happened.
     FTWW not everything with the Big Bang story is fake - the discovery of the particles in the QMs is real, notwithstanding that it has little to do with any Big Bang. The red shift in the light is real. The CMB is real - the circumstance that they are misinterpreted to infinity and patched here and there at random, all of a sudden, and out of nowhere, is another issue. Some of the processes around the Singularity might be true as well, but hardly operating in reverse and without causality. The problem of the Big Bang 'theory' is actually in itself as a theory. Any process can be expressed in words - this is called general semantics of the language. If you have a 'process' or a 'theory' (its formal representation) that cannot be expressed in words - the question is whether that 'process' has existed, is existing, or is able to exist at all.
     Actually both the Religion and the Cosmology desperately need each other, for otherwise they will hardly be able to exist.
     Honestly speaking both the Religion and the Big Bang 'theory' turned out to be constructive driving forces in terms of our self-awareness. This dispute will never end unless the truth is found.
     What happened with the unanswered question: which is the greatest achievement of the present day science?

Who gives a ****? I haven't made any claims regarding it. What happened to the unanswered question: where is your evidence for your "personal" 45%/30%/25% supernaturally teleporting alien/ILF/g0d-thingy-of-the-gaps? You have made a claim about that. Back it up, homie. Put up or shut up.

4:0

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
The red shift in the light is real. The CMB is real

So they are real and you simply discount the explanations with the most evidence while providing no evidence in support of any other explanation.

You have unicorns in your butt. I see no reason to give any explanation of evidence. Now, it is up to you to defend why you have unicorns in that orifice. What medium is keeping them there?

Which is the greatest achievement of the present day unicorns up Herald's butt?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So they are real and you simply discount the explanations with the most evidence

Perhaps you are missing the point - the Big Bang 'theory' is not into the center of the Universe and all the pieces of evidence turning around it - The Big Bang in not the evidence and the red shift is not an explanation of the Big Bang - the things stay just the opposite. The red shift is the evidence and the scientific observation, whereat the expansion (if possible to exist) of the Universe is only one of the plausible physical interpretations of the red shift. Besides that one cannot claim 'the best possible' on the grounds of one instance only.
What I am trying to say is that no other explanations of the red shift have ever been considered, from where automatically follows that the expansion of the Universe cannot be the best possible explanation if it is the only one ever considered. ... and where and when have you proved that the 'expansion of the Universe' is the most probable interpretation of the red shift?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I see no reason to give any explanation of evidence.

... and so am I ... with your personal problem with the hypothesis of the aliens.

1 Reply

@Herald,

And where and when have you proved that the teleportation of the instructions for the universe by invisible, undetectable "personal" 45%/30%/25% alien/ILF/gods-of-the-gap is the most probably interpretation of anything whatsoever besides your pathological derangement? Laughing

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I see no reason to give any explanation of evidence.
... and so am I ... with your personal problem with the hypothesis of the aliens.

Try again, wingnut. That's not a quote from me. Blatant straw man failure. Yet again. Derp.

The only problem is your lack of evidence. Maybe you could get some evidence from the unicorns up your butt. You've failed every other way.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

And where and when have you proved that the teleportation of the instructions for the universe by invisible, undetectable "personal" 45%/30%/25% alien/ILF/gods-of-the-gap is the most probably interpretation of anything whatsoever besides your pathological derangement?

     There is web, there is Google, there is information in the public space - in case you are interested in something in particular you may feel free to search.
     There is another question: are the humans the most intelligent life form on the planet? If the Dinos have managed to survive on this very planet for over 160 MN years, the turtles 220 MN years (which is almost one galactic year); the Crocodiles for 75 MN years ... and we are about the destroy the planet after 200 000 years of presence on it, the question is: who is more intelligent - the species having survived on that planet for over 220 MN years or the species that are able to self-destroy themselves on that very same planet in no more than 250 000 years?
     Which is the greatest achievement of the present day science?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Well, I am interested in something particular, now that you mention it. What is your evidence for your "personal" 45%/30%/25% alien/ILF/gods-of-the-gaps? Just casually wondering. Nobody else on earth, Google included, seems to have a clue... Wink

ONCE AGAIN, I have no claims about the achievements of science. What is the greatest achievement of your "personal" 45%/30%/25% alien/ILF/gods-of-the-gaps?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Well, I am interested in something particular

... and I am not interested at all in the details of your personal problems with the aliens.

FBM wrote:

ONCE AGAIN, I have no claims about the achievements of science.

This is obvious. You don't believe in science - you believe in the status quo, you believe that you will have infinite competitive advantage if you have scientific disintegrity and remain on the side of the status quo in perpetuity. You are much more interested in the money and power that accompany a cloudless career in science, than in the adventure experience with the clouds themselves.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Straw man and non sequitur brushed aside, what I do actually believe is that you have presented no evidence for your claim that your "personal" 45%/30%/25% (subsequently denied) alien/ILF/g0d-of-the-gaps has magically teleported instructions for the universe from billions of years ago. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you've posted such evidence, by all means, direct me to it. Very Happy

4:0

0 Replies

A lot of vitriol and confusion in this thread.

Comologists have developed a great deal of evidence for something like the big bang over the past few decades, perhaps the most important being the almost accidental discovery of the omnidirectional background radiation resulting from it by some Bell Labs physicists a few decades ago. The potential causes of the Big Bang and what might have preceded it, or accompanied it, is something about which physicists can still only speculate or theorize.

Our historical undertanding of the sky or the universe we inhabit has grown by stages. An earth centered view changed to one centered on the sun through Copernicus, and it expanded to one embracing a single and then many galaxies of suns and planets. Throughout has been the question of whether there is anything "special" about our place in the universe. The natural (and proper) assumption of scientists is, in the absence of any specific evidence that it is special, to assume that it is not. That viewpoint has contributed to important discoveries.

Hubble's discovery of the omnidirectional red shift observable in all the stars early in the 20th century vividly forced scientists to confront this issue. Either we occupy the "center" of the universe or there is something else in the nature the geometry of space that could make Hubble's observations possible everrywhere, That and Einstein's findings let to new concepts of the geometry of the universe and the relations between our concepts of energy , mass and time. The simplest metaphorical illustration I know of to explain how a new geometrical concept of curvature in space might explain the universality of Hubble's observations, is to visualize some spots on the surface of a a baloon. In the two dimensional space of that curved surface, if the baloon was being steadily inflated, an observer on any spot on the baloon would see all of the other spots receeding from him at a velocity proportional to their distance from him on that surface. Moreover this same observation could be made from every spot on the baloon's surface. Hence the idea of curvature in additional, unperceived (by us) dimensions in space. This idea has been refined in a number of subsequent cosmological theoretical models, some having as many as seven independent dimensions or coordinates.

The "specialness of our position in the cosmos is still a question. A few decades ago most cosmologists favored the idea that it is certainly not, and that life (somewhat) like ours must exist on innumerable distant planets, though potentially not discoverable in time. New understanding of sensitive dependence on initial conditions and the resulting chaos in star formation and the development of inhabitable planetary systems has significantly complicated that view and reduced the perceived probability. The search goes on and understanding grows...

There remain many unanswered questions in physics and cosmology, and many concepts in the study of it that I certainly don't understand very well (dark matter being an example). However, as with other things in science, conflicts between observed data and theories are being resolved with modified theories and new data. As a result we have a growing coherent understanding of the cosmos,... albeit still incomplete.

Whether this will eventually provide us with an explanation of its origin is another question entirely. Discovery of the "uncaused cause" or the origin of it all may be literally outside the domain of science based on theory and observation. Some postulate that no such thing could exist or have meaning. That, however is no less unprovable or arbitrary than early concepts of an earth centered universe surrounded by "celestial spheres". An ironical result, I think.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

A lot of vitriol and confusion in this thread.

     There is no vitriol & confusion - where do you see anything of the kind.
     Sulfate No.1: The Big Bang is fake ... from any point of view and comprises the greatest pseudo-scientific forgery of any age.
     Sulfate No.2: The Big Bang has no evidence. The things that it claims to have as evidence are not evidence of any Big Bang ever happening.
     Sulfate No.3: The red shift could not only be evidence of any expansion of the Universe, but it can be evidence of a lot of other physical processes as well - like for example blue shift in (shrinking of) the particles with the time; optical loss in the light beam when light travels in space and time and in different medium - after all a distance of 13.8 lys and time of 13.8 years are not a joke.
     Sulfate No.4: The CMB is not independent evidence to the Big Bang 'theory' - it is absolutely correlated with the light (and its red shift respectively), and besides that it may be explained by reflection of light from the 'edge' of the Universe, for example.
     Sulfate No.5: If the Universe is expanding (with acceleration) this is very serious deviation as a claim: aren't we are living in that very same Universe: everything in it should be expanding - the Milky Way should be taking away from Andromeda and not be on the schedule of collision in 4 bys; the SS should be expanding as well; the orbit of the Earth, for example, around the Sun, should be expanding; our planet should be expanding; the magnetic field of the Earth should be expanding; our town should be expanding; our room should be expanding; our laptop should be expanding as well ... O.K., that is enough for me. Nothing is expanding - neither with acceleration nor without acceleration. This is simply a physical misinterpretation of the red shift in light, and it is only a misinterpretation and nothing else.
     The only thing that is expending to infinity and with acceleration is the ignorance of the supporters of the Big Bang 'theory' - which does not need any evidence, for it is obvious.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Excuse my etymological deficiency. Please explain your use of the term Sulfate.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Excuse my etymological deficiency. Please explain your use of the term Sulfate.

In chemistry, vitriol is an archaic name for a sulfate. As some people herein above are accusing the thread of having become a test scene for hormonal vitriol, the metaphor is used as an index of the list with the 'unshakeable' pieces of evidence of the Big Bang 'theory', for in its own understanding of the things the Big Bang 'theory' is presenting itself as crystal clear like a mountain stream ... however the case is not exactly that one.

0 Replies

@Herald,

I found a stochastic teleportation of vitriolic counterinception detailing Herod's stochastic approach to red herring placement in alignment with stochastic inractability anastomosis reticle ion ring formation of the inferior cuticle concerning his "personal" 45%/30%/25% (but not the 25%) magically teleporting, invisible, undetectable alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps:

http://scienceornot.net/2012/05/25/technobabble-and-tenuous-terminology-the-use-of-pseudo-scientific-language/

Quote:

Technobabble and tenuous terminology: the use of pseudo scientific language
May 25, 2012
If someone argues using lots of scientific terms, would it convince you, or is that a red flag?
How to recognise this tactic
In this tactic, people use invented terms that sound “sciencey” or co-opt real science terms and apply them incorrectly.

Why do people use this tactic?
People use pseudoscientific language to try to fool their audience into believing their ideas have scientific status. There would be no need to resort to bogus terminology if their ideas were supported by evidence from real-world testing.

What’s wrong with this tactic
The perpetrators of this tactic throw up invented or misused terms, but rarely define them precisely. They leave their audience to assign meanings according to individual preconceptions. On the rare occasion that a definition is given, it, in turn, refers to further meaningless or undefined terms. The result is that their argument has no foundation, since the concepts used to justify it are meaningless.

What to do when confronted by this tactic
Don’t be intimidated by a barrage of sciencey-sounding words. Ask for an explanation in plain English. Anyone who has a bona fide argument should be able to explain it without resort to jargon. If you can’t communicate with the person making the claim, try to put it into plain English yourself. If it turns out looking like gobbledygook, it probably is.

Variations and related tactics
Pseudoscientific language is one indicator of what Stephen Law, in his book Believing Bullshit, calls pseudoprofundity:

Pseudoprofundity is the art of sounding profound while talking nonsense.
...

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/download_2.jpg

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I found a stochastic teleportation of vitriolic counterinception

If you are curious to know you are the main suspect for the prototype, the script, das Original, and the source of poisoning of the threads with vitriol ... controlled by the genetically laid infinite ignorance.

1 Reply

@Herald,

You've laid down so much technobabble, doublespeak and pseudoscience you don't even recognize it when you see it anymore. And all to avoid the burden of proof for your hybrid, stochastic "personal" teleporting 45%/30%/25% alien/stochastic ILF/god thingy-of-the-stochastic-gaps BS. If you don't want to be ridiculed, stop making ridiculous claims. Otherwise, get used to it, homie.

1 Reply

Wondering if my "Matthew Slepitza's" theory of the big bang could be correct?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know