7
   

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

 
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 03:31 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.
     The case is just the opposite - I like it for it is a masterpiece of forgery, but nevertheless it isn't true and that can be verified and validated in many ways.

And how did you arrive at this scientific insight? After years of academic research on your doctorate in astrophysics? Or dare I say... a few clicks on some reliable internet sites like conspiracy.4u or justbelieve.god, or one of the many other fine establishments of information available for your perusal.
Herald
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 10:00 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
And how did you arrive at this scientific insight? After years of academic research on your doctorate in astrophysics? Or dare I say... a few clicks on some reliable internet sites like conspiracy.4u or justbelieve.god, or one of the many other fine establishments of information available for your perusal.
     1. From where the astrophysics and the cosmology have acquired the copyright on the issue?
     2. ... and how exactly did they come to know that this issue is astrophysical ... in the first place?
     3. No assessment is made by the people sitting on the test (and having common interest to establish a cheating mafia).
     In the case of the Big Bang 'theory' IMV the assessment should be made by the people who with their misery are funding such mind-blowing and meaningless projects - by the real Assignors (if they have ever assigned anything of the kind to whomsoever) - the Taxpayers. No peer-reviewed mafia would ever be able to make any impartial assessment of the issue ... especially after it has been converted into an infinite gold mine and incubator for bunglers. Anyway.
     According to your personal assessment, at rough estimate, which is the greatest achievement of the modern science?
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 04:47 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:
No peer-reviewed mafia would ever be able to make any impartial assessment of the issue ...
That's it, that's the best you can do? You don't even demonstrate the tiniest understanding of the very theory you trash and now you want to claim it's a giant conspiracy to cover up the truth. Give me a break.

And my personal assessment of the greatest achievement of Science... being able to make progress and provide functional benefits for humanity despite the oppressive stupidity and delusion coming from the very people it helps.
Herald
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 11:56 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
That's it, that's the best you can do? You don't even demonstrate the tiniest understanding of the very theory.
     Why don't you tell us something about 'the tiniest understanding of the very theory', like for example how can Temperature exist without a material carrier, how exactly on the grounds that a neutron star can collapse into a black hole and singularity one can draw a conclusion that a singularity can appear out of nowhere and can create matter by the reverse process? What about the Time - do you really believe that the Caesium clock on the Earth (near greater mass) goes faster than a Caesium clock on the Moon ... as the general relativity theory claims?
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 03:54 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
Why don't you tell us something about 'the tiniest understanding of the very theory', like for example how can Temperature exist without a material carrier,

The theory doesn't say that. That is your made up ****.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 04:35 pm
@Herald,
You just rattled off a bunch of misunderstandings. How pathetic.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 05:52 pm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CC8lhJVUIAAqjTe.jpg
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 12:42 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
The theory doesn't say that. That is your made up ****.
     It says that and even how. How would you interpret that classics in original: 'the temperature of the universe was significantly higher in the past because the Universe existed in what ... that the Universe is infinitely finite' (whatever that infinitely finite is supposed to mean - my comment) 'that there was no time before the Big Bang .... At high energies and temperatures, the forces of Nature become symmetric.' (Einstein). If with every past year the temperature has been higher and higher the previous year ago - how much higher it should have been onto the time of the Big Bang 'theory' ... some 13.8 bya?
     The other classical interpretation of the Big Bang 'theory' claims that 'Since density is defined as mass divided by volume, the density was infinite. ... Sometimes, "big bang" stands for "big bang singularity" - the singular point in time that, ...' (Einstein).
     Do you want to know what the diligent followers of that classicists are talking nowadays online: '... needs one to accept that suddenly mass just appeared out of nowhere? ... Assuming the Big Bang theory is correct, how did it all even come to be?'
     Actually in which in particular Big Bang 'theory' you believe. It's no wonder that most of the great fans of the Big Bang 'theory' become, all of a sudden and out of nowhere, tense and nervous, when they are asked utmost politely to explain in no more than 25 words what the Big Bang 'theory' is actually claiming.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 12:47 pm
@Herald,
Funny, how there is no mention of no carrier for the higher temperature. It seems you did make up ****.

Herald
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 12:59 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Funny, how there is no mention of no carrier for the higher temperature. It seems you did make up ****.
     I don't need to make anything - it is **** on arrival. If the universe was infinitely finite and the temperature was infinitely finite in reverse ... what the f'ck was that infinitely finite infinity that was the carrier of the temperature - call it material carrier, call it force carrier (if you view the temperature as energy field) - but without a carrier no temperature can exists, no matter whether finite or infinite ... or infinitely finite.
     Can you write software on lack of hardware, can you transmit light without the FO cable or perhaps you can exist as a soul and mind without the body. Every physics and metaphysics must have some shame and some scruples in their infinitely finite shameless misrepresentations ... but obviously it is not always the case.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 01:17 pm
@Herald,
So... you are going to quote Einstein? Can you give us the source you think you are quoting him from?

Let's see what other **** you made up while we are at it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 01:18 pm
@Herald,
So, tell us what the temperature was at a given time in the singularity. Once you tell us the exact temperature then we can discuss the medium.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 01:29 pm
Meanwhile, Matthew Slepitza has slepitzad into the chthonic regions, perhaps never to return.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 10:29 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
So, tell us what the temperature was at a given time in the singularity. Once you tell us the exact temperature then we can discuss the medium.
     1. This idea with the Infinite Temperature is claimed by your 'theory' - the idea is not mine in order to engage with any proof of it.
     2. The 'exact temperature' in your favourite theory is Infinity - ten trillion trillions to the power of zillions of zillions as your proselytes are approximating Infinity on the videos on the net ... for amusement of the population.
     3. It doesn't matter how much is the 'exact temperature' of the Big Bang 'theory' - what actually matters is that you cannot have even one degree of temperature without a heat carrier.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 11:24 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true. It is an extremely accurate fit to empirical evidence. When someone comes up with a better theory, then we'll go with that. But so far nobody has.


Haven't you heard? Herald has!!!1!uno!

Herald wrote:

... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th.; 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), 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....
Herald
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2015 11:18 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th.; 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), 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....
     Even if we forget for a moment from where has the Big Bang appeared and how, the Big Bang 'theory' does not have the capacity to create 3D space out of whatever ... and to take out of wherever any information to perform the structuring of the Universe .... and to launch the Time, not to speak that it does not have the vaguest idea of what the Time actually is. Just like you.
     As far as the aliens are concerned - this is a case scenario of a standard risk analysis of the military ... and unless you prove that the risk is zero you cannot talk. Actually you should read the classics.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2015 02:54 pm
@Herald,
Infinity is an exact temperature? That's an interesting take on the meaning of infinity.

Now tell us what medium is needed to have an infinite temperature. I am curious how far down the rabbit hole you are willing to go.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2015 03:57 pm
When you folks use nested quotes, please be careful to correctly identify the original poster. This has become a most godawfully difficult thread to follow, not because of the subject, but for who said what.

Perhaps the whole thread should be relegated to the chthonic regions where, as reported by those who know, the temperature is infinitely cold. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2015 07:41 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th.; 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), 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....
     Even if we forget for a moment from where has the Big Bang appeared and how, the Big Bang 'theory' does not have the capacity to create 3D space out of whatever ... and to take out of wherever any information to perform the structuring of the Universe .... and to launch the Time, not to speak that it does not have the vaguest idea of what the Time actually is. Just like you.
     As far as the aliens are concerned - this is a case scenario of a standard risk analysis of the military ... and unless you prove that the risk is zero you cannot talk. Actually you should read the classics.


You give it 25% and have subsequently posted pages and pages of posts claiming that it never happened. Derp. What does your standard risk analyis of the 3D space have the capacity to speak the vaguest idea of what the Time really is? You just try to take out whatever any information to quantize your 45/35/25 alien/ILF/god 'theory' without structuring a stochastic scenario. I doubt you are able. 35% ancient aliens teleporting instructions for the universal structure of the military non-zero risk stochastic scenario that it does not have.
Herald
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 03:38 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Infinity is an exact temperature? That's an interesting take on the meaning of infinity.
     The idea of approximating Infinity with Ten Trillion Trillions (degree of whatever) is from a reference to a video, strongly recommended by your proselyte FBM ... who, BTW, will hardly ever return on the Earth from the black hole of the hypothesis with the aliens.
parados wrote:
Now tell us what medium is needed to have an infinite temperature.
     I asked that question - and the claim for the existence or appearance or whatever there it might be of the Infinite Temperature without causality and without heat carrier is a favourite claim of your favourite Big Bang 'theory' - why am I supposed to prove your claims. My claim was that the assumptions of the Big Bang and of God, etc. are unknowable, which does not in any way suppose to prove that any infinite or finite Temperature cannot exist without a heat carrier ... especially when this is obvious.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 05:19:08