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

@FBM,

You are neither reading the title of the threads nor the comments. Even a radio-station has a better feedback.

@Herald,

Well, I'm obviously reading it now. And I'm not seeing any explanation or evidence to support your hypothesis. Waiting...

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Well, I'm obviously reading it now.

... and what have you read so far, it it is not a secret? This thread here is not asking about whether the Universe has Intelligence or is 'happening naturally'. It assumes a priori and somehow beyond any doubt that the Universe is 'happening naturally' (whatever that might mean), and asks whether the fake assumptions of the Singularity creating the Universe can be replaced by the even more fake assumptions of annihilation of matter & anti-matter to have created the Universe? Where exactly do you see any aliens here ... and phenomenology of the personality?
BTW, this claim here implicitly acknowledges that the Big Bang is your Father ... and you are made out of recycled star dust beyond any doubt.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter....

is hardly support for the BBT. First of all, it's only 25% (whatever that means in the first place). It's wingnut quackery tring to survive on verbiage that it doesn't even comprehend.

You can change that, of course, at any time by presenting observational and/or experimental data to support it. *cough*

1 Reply

@FBM,

Obviously you are not present on the discussion. You are living in some imaginary personal world where you are some mega-expert in phenomenology.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Whereas believing in invisible, magically earth design-teleporting alien/ILF/god-thingies, despite not having the first shred of evidence, is not in the least imaginary. Laughing

Prove me wrong. Show some evidence for your cosmological hypotheis. I'll be wating here.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Can you explain in few words what is the interpretation of the title of this thread.

1 Reply

@Herald,

It's an invitation to discuss hypotheses related to the BBT. Your pile of steaming poo is related. It wouldn't be such a big pile of crap if you'd just man up and show us some evidence so that we might have a reason to take it as something other than science denialist, wingnut fantasy.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

It's an invitation to discuss hypotheses related to the BBT.

No, it is nothing of the kind. It assumes a priory and by default that: (1) the Universe has been created and has not existed before; (2) that the Big Bang 'theory' is the only legitimate possible creator of the Universe; (3) that it disposes with al the Information needed to make that inference ... and that no Information has been lost in-between; (4) We may have existing before Time everything we need to support our fake theory; (5) that an annihilation of matter & antimatter, existing before Time into the Nowhere, is able to create 3D space out of the said Nowhere; (6) that the processes are 'just happening naturally' (whatever that and the other thing, herein above are supposed to mean).

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
It's an invitation to discuss hypotheses related to the BBT.
No, it is nothing of the kind. It assumes a priory and by default that: (1) the Universe has been created and has not existed before; (2) that the Big Bang 'theory' is the only legitimate possible creator of the Universe; (3) that it disposes with al the Information needed to make that inference ... and that no Information has been lost in-between; (4) We may have existing before Time everything we need to support our fake theory; (5) that an annihilation of matter & antimatter, existing before Time into the Nowhere, is able to create 3D space out of the said Nowhere; (6) that the processes are 'just happening naturally' (whatever that and the other thing, herein above are supposed to mean).

You see? You're discussing others' hypotheses related to the BBT! Ain't it fun? And I'm doing the same by discussing your alien/ILF/g0d-thingy-of-the-gaps hypothesis. And guess what? You're asking for evidence! Who'd a-thunk it?!? Now, how about providing some of what you're asking for: evidence? For your own BS teleporting alien crap hypothesis, that is.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

You see? You're discussing others' hypotheses related to the BBT!

I am not discussing it - these are subtitles to the title on this thread that you will obviously be unable to understand for life.

FBM wrote:

Ain't it fun?

No, it is called illiterate spelling mistakes.

FBM wrote:

And I'm doing the same by discussing your alien/ILF/g0d-thingy-of-the-gaps hypothesis.

You are not discussing anything -you are repeating to infinity like a broken record one and the same question that with every post and in any way is becoming more and more distorted. This could be everything else, but discussion.

FBM wrote:

And guess what? ...

On the next post you will repeat the broken record with the 'gaps of the aliens', for you evidently lack creativity and analytics, and unfortunately some good manners as well.

FBM wrote:

You're asking for evidence!

No, I am asking you to define the Gaps of your own construct 'whatever of the Gaps', for without defining and enumerating the Gaps your claim collapses like a house of cards.

FBM wrote:

Now, how about providing some of what you're asking for: evidence?

... and how exactly do you imagine the evidence to the claim that the assumptions of the Big Bang are unknowable?

What about your evidence - do you have the set of equations & the set of physical interpretations proving consistency of the Big Bang 'theory': 1. that the Big Bang is consistent as a formal model and can pretend to be some theory; and 2. that the Big Bang is physics at all ... and not literature fiction, genre fables for idiots.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I don't need evidence for any cosmological claim because I'm not making one. The only evidence I need is your words in order to point out your logical fallacies and lack of evidence. Why does your god only get 45% of your belief (and have to share that 45% with some contradictory babble)? Don't you think that god will be pretty upset that you didn't have 100% belief in it?

0 Replies

One can dismiss Herald's babble about the so-called big bang immediately because that hypothesis does not assume any creation. As Hawking and others pointed out in about 1970, time and space have the same finite origin as matter and energy, i.e., the singularity, also known as "the big bang." Herald uses the term "creation," because he is hung-up in his theistic model.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

What does "finite origin" mean? Do you believe the postulated big bang origin of space energy and time is a scientific explanation?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

What does "finite origin" mean?

Finite origin means Infinite Gravitation, existing without a force carrier, appearing 'naturally', all of a sudden and out of Nowhere, and without any causality ... just so, for the purposes of the 'theory'. When the theory needs something, it just appears out of Nowhere ... on the paper, on the grounds of finite origin.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Finite origin refers to the singularity, and whether or not you're prepared to accept it, the so-called big bang is the standard model.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I think what george is getting at is the apparent instability of any field equations that require an "ingredient"(like Mass) that , by Heralds definition, does not even exist.

Im totally off his melon truck for many many months.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Finite origin refers to the singularity, and whether or not you're prepared to accept it, the so-called big bang is the standard model.

Well the so-called standard model also includes three unperceived dimensions in a seven dimensional space time universe as well as dark matter and energy which are postulated to account for the otherwiswe inexplicable acceleration in the expansion of the universe .... all in addition to the big bang itself. Moreover the theory offers no explanation for the existence of the energy that emerged from the singularity, and unlike other laws of physics it cannot be verified by either direct observation or repeatable experiment. This is what I was referring to when I asked if you thought it was a sufficient scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. It is not.

That said the Big Bank are indeed the best currently available explanations for the evolution of our universe since then, very significantly, the background radiation first discovered about thirty years ago by two Bell Labs scientists directly confirms a prediction based on it.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

How do you feel about the idea that there is or was an ancient race of god-like alien intelligent life forms that teleport the earth's design from billions of years ago?

2 Replies

@FBM,

Are you serious?? I have no opinion on the matter. I casn neither prove nor disprove it.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know