Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
Thanks everyone for understanding how this place plays such a huge part in my life.
And John...
I assume the book does not accept the big bang theory and my further assumption is that you perhaps think I accept the big bag theory...well I do from a scientific point of view in so far as it is the current accepted theory and there is no other theory that is able to replace it...however personally I really dont think the theory of inflation ( It was a band aid and a damn pity it hasn't been replaced) is satisfactory, as in my view ( not that my view matters) it really is not science...however leaving that aside I dont like the big bang theory because the idea has most folk seeing it as suggesting a point of creation, and here I note that I recognise the theory only seeks to deal with the evolution of the universe after a point in time (supposedly the start of time) upon which the theory makes no comment upon..what happened, what came before? ...dont know...however there would be a lot of folk who would see that point as a point of creation and hyjack the theory to support philosophies entertaining an entity capable of creating a universe....and look to who presented the idea...a priest!!! A brilliant scientist but I cant help but think his back ground could have influenced his direction...I like to remind folk that the big bang theory takes us to dealing with a hot dense something not a "nothing" which would be the prime ingredient of a "created" universe.
In any event,in a belief that I have an understanding of what is your philosophy, I would point out that proving or disproving the big bang theory goes nowhere in proving or disproving the existence of an entity capable of creating a universe, much the same as proving or disproving the theory of evolution can do likewise...the proof of your philosophy can only stand on its own proof and you cant rely on scoreing points by discrediting existing established science....such proofs are irrelevant although clearly there are those who think its a winner takes all game...well it is not.
Nevertheless I would really like to meet you in person and have a chat and see if I can help you with your proposed astronomy night.
Alex
|
hope to get together with you soon. Next time I go to RFS headquarters at Casino on Sunday, could take my sleeping bag, and drop in the next day, Monday.
Know proving the big bang is wrong, does not prove anything, other than perhaps some are deceived by what they are fed.
90% of all research Papers on Cosmology is theoretical, and only 10% is based on observations according to the claim of this book,
And this book shows how some university experiments found a photon can travel at 1.7 times the speed of light, which is thought to be a constant according to E=MC squared, see Scientific American, August 1993.
"Dr. John Hucha ofthe Harvard Smithsonian Center uttered two words that cause theorists to quake in their boots:
Magnetic fields [Scientific American, July 1992]
The reason that scientists quake at these two words is that they have not, as yet, evaluated the significance of magnetic fields in relation to their Big Bang theory."
"Some cosmological models incorporating cold dark matter can account for the existence of large clusters and super clusters of galaxies. N
one can do both. Some researchers therefore suspect that cold dark matter may turn out to be a chimera. "The physicists have been enormously reluctant to accept what astronomy shows them" says [Arno] Penzias [Noble laureate and co-discoverer of background microwaves in 1964], who argues in favor of a less dense universe containing only ordinary matter. "Colds dark matter is dead." [James] Peebles [of Princeton University] agrees" Scientific American, July 1992.
So Alex this book "The Big Bang Exploded" had lots of evidence against the theory.
