frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




The Big-Bang Story

2456



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    A singularity got too dense so it exploded and the universe is still expanding so a logical conclusion is that it had to originate from a single point. Also, not 93 billion miles. The light could not reach us because the universe is not that old. 


    All you have to do now is show us a "singularity" in, umm a medium that is just like what the "singularity" was in 14 billion years ago? This O.P. is about proving the Big Bang has something/anything to do with science or not?

    You can use any data from CERN's LHC records of 24/7 bombardments of particles that by now should show how those particles pop in and out of primordial-nothing!?
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @Evidence ;

    You don't actually seem to understand what a theory is. You need to read your dictionary more.

     Theories such as the Big Bang or God for example, can be as believable or unbelievable as you care to regard them.

    Theory is not or ever intended to be, proof of anything.

    A theory is merely a suggestion. No matter how complex or fanciful it might be.


    I'm sorry @Fredsenphew, I don't understand what you're trying to say? Are you saying that only Priests are working on "theories"?

    You see I was under the impression that BB-Evolution was a fact, proven by thousands of scientists of all discipline working over hundreds of years, using billions of dollars worth of scientific equipment!?

    You can ask any atheist that believes in the BB-Evolution theories that it "proves to them" that there is no God.
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    Evidence said:
    @Gooberry I do not know what that was. But it does not appear to be a reply to anything I just said.

    I asked you, specifically whether you thought the sun sould rise tommorow; and seemed to get what appeared to be a “yes”, though I’m not sure; followed by what appears to be a nonsensical rant.

    Can I ask again: do you think the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    I think the answer is yes; but it’s not particularly clear.[/quote]

    No.



    @Gooberry ;Can I ask again: do you think the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    Please see my answer above? It was a "No."

    I was staring with the beginning, the moment before the Big bang, and you were starting 9 billions later with the sun.

    You don’t think the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    Okay. I predict it will rise tommorow. I will check back tomorrow and see which one of us is more accurate.


    Which one of is more accurate? I am, I guarantee it. And tomorrow I will tell you the same thing to that same question.

    Tomorrow -

    @Gooberry - "You don’t believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow?"
    Evidence - "No, I don't believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow." 

    Today it rose, because we have empirical evidence of it. What happened 14 billion years ago is also anyone's guess?
    Erfisflat
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    Evidence said:
    @Gooberry I do not know what that was. But it does not appear to be a reply to anything I just said.

    I asked you, specifically whether you thought the sun sould rise tommorow; and seemed to get what appeared to be a “yes”, though I’m not sure; followed by what appears to be a nonsensical rant.

    Can I ask again: do you think the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    I think the answer is yes; but it’s not particularly clear.[/quote]

    No.



    @Gooberry ;Can I ask again: do you think the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    Please see my answer above? It was a "No."

    I was staring with the beginning, the moment before the Big bang, and you were starting 9 billions later with the sun.

    You don’t think the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    Okay. I predict it will rise tommorow. I will check back tomorrow and see which one of us is more accurate.


    Which one of is more accurate? I am, I guarantee it. And tomorrow I will tell you the same thing to that same question.

    Tomorrow -

    @Gooberry - "You don’t believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow?"
    Evidence - "No, I don't believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow." 

    Today it rose, because we have empirical evidence of it. What happened 14 billion years ago is also anyone's guess?
    The fact that you’re willing to claim the sun won’t rise tomorrow tells me that you’re either , or insane.
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Nope said:
    Erfisflat
    "How did he do so?"
    Red shift.

    "I don't detect radiation"
    Your TV can. : )


    In space? Why haven't we seen NASA's ISS have a TV outside getting a new redshift reading, because the age of the universe since its conception few hundred years ago aged billions of years. Was that time-dilation from us spinning and twirling through space?
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    Evidence said:
    @Gooberry I do not know what that was. But it does not appear to be a reply to anything I just said.

    I asked you, specifically whether you thought the sun sould rise tommorow; and seemed to get what appeared to be a “yes”, though I’m not sure; followed by what appears to be a nonsensical rant.

    Can I ask again: do you think the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    I think the answer is yes; but it’s not particularly clear.[/quote]

    No.



    @Gooberry ;Can I ask again: do you think the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    Please see my answer above? It was a "No."

    I was staring with the beginning, the moment before the Big bang, and you were starting 9 billions later with the sun.

    You don’t think the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    Okay. I predict it will rise tommorow. I will check back tomorrow and see which one of us is more accurate.


    Which one of is more accurate? I am, I guarantee it. And tomorrow I will tell you the same thing to that same question.

    Tomorrow -

    @Gooberry - "You don’t believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow?"
    Evidence - "No, I don't believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow." 

    Today it rose, because we have empirical evidence of it. What happened 14 billion years ago is also anyone's guess?
    The fact that you’re willing to claim the sun won’t rise tomorrow tells me that you’re either , or insane.


    I worked with some people over 30 years, every day, Mon-Fri they showed up at work, then one morning he didn't and we all got the news he died. No one can predict what happens tomorrow except tomorrow.

    But what I just mentioned above was from evidence collected for 30 years, but now imagine if I only had some photo shopped picture of my co-worker for 30 years doing different jobs around the shop every day, and each day a different picture, and you ask me if he will show up to work tomorrow or not? I never seen him in the first place, the pictures show he may be working here, so how will I predict something I never seen?

    The stars are spinning around us, some actually move, others look like dark shadows, still others sparkle and so on. To tell me the Big-Bang story how galaxies are moving apart which I have never seen except when we travel (like looking into the woods as you're driving, the perspective makes some trees look like they are coming together, and others as if they were spreading apart, but we know that they are firmly rooted in the ground) and then calculate these specks of lights having been at a single point 14 billion years ago, while they claim there is; "no center of the universe", is, .. well like you said: " and insane".

    Yes, a singularity, the entire universe squeezed into one hot and dense point that has no center, .. and I'm insane!?

    Let's go to the beginning as you said: So where was this quantum speck with no center, getting denser and denser ready to "suddenly inflate itself" (Big-Bang) in?

    There is no Star Wars space with billions of planets, all we have is what we've all seen: the heaven with all the stars, with our sun and the moon circling around our flat earth. If you want to make a prediction, do so from what we can all see, and have seen all our lives.

    The fake space walks, artist rendered satellites, rockets going up then turning, NASA CGI created science fiction planets, Astronauts in Zero-G planes, .. these are being ripped apart and proven fake by the day, so any predictions made on these is no different than me predicting that Peter Pan will come by Wendy's window tomorrow.
    Erfisflat
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    well the sun rose yesterday. And today.

    want to bet the sun won’t rise tommorow?
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @Evidence

    well the sun rose yesterday. And today.

    want to bet the sun won’t rise tommorow?

    I am trying to predict by your BB-Evolution science, which is that there was no sun for 9 out of the 14 billion years that BB-scientists have been observing the universe.
    What if a quantum speck is about to Big bang as we speak? They said they spotted black holes everywhere in space. If the BB happened in nothing, then just imagine the possibility of it happening in everything!? Any moment and our solar system, our galaxy and maybe even our universe will be as if it never happened. We been lucky for the past 14 billion years, but the odds are stacked against us.

    Besides, if you loose the bet, you won't be around for me to collect it.

    But fine, I will play along: (ignoring the stats, and all the possibilities against it) Yes I believe the sun will come up tomorrow.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    You were trying to reduce modern science to a ridiculous misrepresentation and then pretend as if that representation is accurate.

    But either way, excellent: the sun will come up tommorow.

    If I said that the sun would disppear tommorow; would you believe me? You wouldn’t right?
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    You were trying to reduce modern science to a ridiculous misrepresentation and then pretend as if that representation is accurate.

    But either way, excellent: the sun will come up tommorow.

    If I said that the sun would disppear tommorow; would you believe me? You wouldn’t right?


    The sun rose yesterday, and today, .. it did not rise tomorrow. Pay up!

    I just gave you the possibilities about the sun from BB-Evolution statistics, where the probability of it NOT rising is far greater, so of course I would believe you that the sun could disappear tomorrow, .. that is from a BB-Evolutionist standpoint, .. considering the chaotic expanding vacuum, .. it's way overdue for a Big-Crunch.
    And if the Big-Crunch will implode as fast as the Big-Bang expanded, .. it would be over for us in a few seconds.

    This Post is about you proving to us that the Big-Bang story is a theory, .. you said you want to start at the "beginning", so I asked you about the beginning of the Big-Bang story, now you supposed to turn that into a "theory"!?

    Again, where did the quantum speck 14 billion years ago, get denser and hotter IN?
    Erfisflat
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    Ugh. It’s like I don’t even have to be here.

    You're like that homeless guy on the subway home that is always shouting at no one. Are you just going to shout at everyone, or are you actually wanting a conversation?



    “If I said that the sun would disppear tommorow; would you believe me? You wouldn’t right?”
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @evidence ; as you can see, goober here is just an unpaid shill. If he can't refute or doesn't understand your point, he's more likely to call you or homeless because of reasons....
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @Evidence

    Ugh. It’s like I don’t even have to be here.

    You're like that homeless guy on the subway home that is always shouting at no one. Are you just going to shout at everyone, or are you actually wanting a conversation?



    “If I said that the sun would disppear tommorow; would you believe me? You wouldn’t right?”

    Where is all your BB-Evolutionist friends, maybe they could answer my "in the beginning" question for you?

    I answered you from two perspectives:

    1. Tomorrow is not promised for us, so I couldn't tell you, nor promise you if the sun will rise tomorrow, .. Only God knows, .. not even His son Word aka Jesus Christ knows.

    2. From a BB-Evolutionary standpoint, the universe is slowing down, which I said if it is expected to Big-Crunch, it could happen in seconds, just as it inflated to the present infinite size in a few seconds.

    I mean you do know how your Big-Bang happened don't you?

    Yes, from both Creationist and the BB-Evolutionist standpoint, the sun could disappear tomorrow. Now what?
    Erfisflat
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Evidence

    Ugh. It’s like I don’t even have to be here.

    You're like that homeless guy on the subway home that is always shouting at no one. Are you just going to shout at everyone, or are you actually wanting a conversation?



    “If I said that the sun would disppear tommorow; would you believe me? You wouldn’t right?”
    Yes, the sun could disappear tomorrow. Now what?
    I’ve removed everything that wasn’t a nonsensical rant.

    Perhaps you should not go into crazy rants as much, because during your foaming at the mouth nonsense, you forgot what the question was..

    I asked whether you would believe me if I said it wouldn’t, not whether it was possible that it wouldnt




    ErfisflatEvidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Also, @evidence he's a cherry-picker
    LibertineStatesEvidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    @Ampersand
    Science and technology can seem like magic if sufficiently advanced (or the person refuses to accept it)

    Well, just because a scientist who is an expert in astronomy, .. like an astronomer who's observing the celestial bodies doesn't give him the right to tell me where it all popped out of 13 billion years ago. Or like a biologist who can identify all my organs and cells don't have the right to tell me I am an animal, an evolving ape who evolved over 4 billion years from amoeba birthed in some primordial soup, .. nor my auto mechanic who can tear my car down to its nuts and bolts and put it all back together again tell me that this knowledge of his has revealed to him how over the millions and billions of years this car assembled itself from redshift gasses or whatever.

    Now a cosmologist who works in either Disney's, or NASA's art studio, for him to do this is different, because his job involves making up stories of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang story, to today, and on into 'infinity and beyond'! These guys are all involved in creating Magic.

    LibertineStatesqipwbdeoErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Evidence

    Ugh. It’s like I don’t even have to be here.

    You're like that homeless guy on the subway home that is always shouting at no one. Are you just going to shout at everyone, or are you actually wanting a conversation?



    “If I said that the sun would disppear tommorow; would you believe me? You wouldn’t right?”
    Yes, the sun could disappear tomorrow. Now what?
    I’ve removed everything that wasn’t a nonsensical rant.

    Perhaps you should not go into crazy rants as much, because during your foaming at the mouth nonsense, you forgot what the question was..

    I asked whether you would believe me if I said it wouldn’t, not whether it was possible that it wouldnt






    I said I would believe you, and gave you two different perspectives why I believed that.
    Erfisflat
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Evidence

    Ugh. It’s like I don’t even have to be here.

    You're like that homeless guy on the subway home that is always shouting at no one. Are you just going to shout at everyone, or are you actually wanting a conversation?



    “If I said that the sun would disppear tommorow; would you believe me? You wouldn’t right?”
    Yes, the sun could disappear tomorrow. Now what?
    I’ve removed everything that wasn’t a nonsensical rant.

    Perhaps you should not go into crazy rants as much, because during your foaming at the mouth nonsense, you forgot what the question was..

    I asked whether you would believe me if I said it wouldn’t, not whether it was possible that it wouldnt






    I said I would believe you, and gave you two different perspectives why I believed that.
    Awesome.

    As you’d believe me if I said the sun would not rise tommorow without me providing any evidence, this indicates you are a gullible fool who claims scientific positions are foolish, yet is willing to believe that something as crazy as the sun not rising just on someone’s day so: this indicates you are either dishonest, or an .
    LibertineStatesqipwbdeoErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat ;

    All theories start with a premise, which could be either true or false. That is the essence of a theory.

    You suggesting that the Big Bang theory has a false premise, is itself a theory and therefore not a proven fact.





    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    The Big-Bang Universe story:

    - *The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point.

    OK, now the universe here is not their universe with all the galaxies, planets, earth and life on it as we know it, but they call a quantum speck of unknown origins, in a 'point in space' before space existed, 'universe'. I don't understand why they refer to this quantum-vacuum, or a quantum force like gravity as a "universe"?
    Isn't that like referring to the air in my tires as a "car"?

    - *When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age

    This is talking about a quantum speck  of vacuum before time, .. or just as its getting ready to created time!?

    — *it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously.

    This is talking about a quantum vacuum-speck in a point in space before space existed, or before the speck created space within itself, .. expanding into what?
    In other words, what were Cosmologist in, .. or what do they imagine they are in as they watch and measure a "vacuum expanding faster than light"?
    Besides, how did they measure a "vacuum" expanding faster then light? I mean we can measure wind speed, .. but how does one measure the speed of a perfect vacuum?

    - *The work that goes into understanding the expanding universe comes from a combination of theoretical physics and direct observations by astronomers.

    Ah, here we go, I guess that explains my questions, only I would love to know the make of that telescope the astronomers were using to observe the quantum vacuum expand? Because I'm sure they watched other perfect-vacuums expand faster than the speed of light with these telescopes before, .. correct!?

    - *According to NASA, after inflation the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate. As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.

    So far we have a quantum vacuum expanding before space existed, traveling/expanding faster than the speed of light which they themselves say "nothing can go faster" of, to the size of a golf-ball as seen by astronomers who are witnessing this happening, .. in WHAT?
    I believe it was Lawrence Krauss that explained this in his "something from nothing" lectures, saying that the universe wasn't in something, it inflated/expanded within itself since nothing exists outside of the universe.

    So I ask, how do you match the universe to the size of a golf ball looking at it from the inside?
    So in one second as this vacuum cooled, it created matter, ..  filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos, .. HOW?
    Have scientists observed vacuum get hot, or cool, or create matter? Is that what they are smashing in the LHC, quantum vacuums?
    Or, how does a vacuum expand? It just goes against all logic of science?

    OK, any comments, admonishments, chastisement or corrections to my understanding of the "beginning" of the universe, aka the Big Bang so far?
    EmeryPearson
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    The Big-Bang Universe story:

    - *The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point.

    OK, now the universe here is not their universe with all the galaxies, planets, earth and life on it as we know it, but they call a quantum speck of unknown origins, in a 'point in space' before space existed, 'universe'. I don't understand why they refer to this quantum-vacuum, or a quantum force like gravity as a "universe"?
    Isn't that like referring to the air in my tires as a "car"?

    - *When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age

    This is talking about a quantum speck  of vacuum before time, .. or just as its getting ready to created time!?

    — *it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously.

    This is talking about a quantum vacuum-speck in a point in space before space existed, or before the speck created space within itself, .. expanding into what?
    In other words, what were Cosmologist in, .. or what do they imagine they are in as they watch and measure a "vacuum expanding faster than light"?
    Besides, how did they measure a "vacuum" expanding faster then light? I mean we can measure wind speed, .. but how does one measure the speed of a perfect vacuum?

    - *The work that goes into understanding the expanding universe comes from a combination of theoretical physics and direct observations by astronomers.

    Ah, here we go, I guess that explains my questions, only I would love to know the make of that telescope the astronomers were using to observe the quantum vacuum expand? Because I'm sure they watched other perfect-vacuums expand faster than the speed of light with these telescopes before, .. correct!?

    - *According to NASA, after inflation the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate. As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.

    So far we have a quantum vacuum expanding before space existed, traveling/expanding faster than the speed of light which they themselves say "nothing can go faster" of, to the size of a golf-ball as seen by astronomers who are witnessing this happening, .. in WHAT?
    I believe it was Lawrence Krauss that explained this in his "something from nothing" lectures, saying that the universe wasn't in something, it inflated/expanded within itself since nothing exists outside of the universe.

    So I ask, how do you match the universe to the size of a golf ball looking at it from the inside?
    So in one second as this vacuum cooled, it created matter, ..  filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos, .. HOW?
    Have scientists observed vacuum get hot, or cool, or create matter? Is that what they are smashing in the LHC, quantum vacuums?
    Or, how does a vacuum expand? It just goes against all logic of science?

    OK, any comments, admonishments, chastisement or corrections to my understanding of the "beginning" of the universe, aka the Big Bang so far?
    Everything you said was a deliberate and willful misrepresention of the science involved.


    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    cont. -

    -*Roughly 380,000 years after the Big Bang, matter cooled enough for atoms to form during the era of recombination, resulting in a transparent, electrically neutral gas, according to NASA. This set loose the initial flash of light created during the Big Bang, which is detectable today as cosmic microwave background radiation. However, after this point, the universe was plunged into darkness, since no stars or any other bright objects had formed yet.

    So let's go back to the first few microseconds as the quantum vacuum Big Bangs: "This set loose the initial flash of light created during the Big Bang,"

    OK, so we have a quantum sized vacuum that suddenly exploded with a Big Bang and a flash of light.

    Where is the quantum vacuum in, that they can envision a big Bang, and a flash of light?
    I believe they are imagining all this here on earth, in air, where an explosion does go off with a flash of light followed by a big Bang. Because the rest of their story follows the Doppler effect, which was observed as sound was traveling through air as associated with observing the firetruck sirens.
    As the story goes on, they explain the redshift of galaxies and stars the same grade school way, using the firetruck; When the firetruck is going away from the person, we see the red tail lights (the truck red shifting), and when the truck is coming towards us, we see its headlights (white shifting) and from this comes the cosmic microwave radiation as proof of the Big Bang!

    In cosmology, the redshift is just a Radio/microwave Telescope pointed up towards the dome, capturing the high energy transmissions coming from HAARP and the millions of other signals like cell phones, radio and television etc.

    But to keep robbing us the billions of dollars, each year they have to come up with some additional justification of the Big-Bang theory, no matter how childish the story!?
    Erfisflat
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    cont. -

    -*Roughly 380,000 years after the Big Bang, matter cooled enough for atoms to form during the era of recombination, resulting in a transparent, electrically neutral gas, according to NASA. This set loose the initial flash of light created during the Big Bang, which is detectable today as cosmic microwave background radiation. However, after this point, the universe was plunged into darkness, since no stars or any other bright objects had formed yet.

    So let's go back to the first few microseconds as the quantum vacuum Big Bangs: "This set loose the initial flash of light created during the Big Bang,"

    OK, so we have a quantum sized vacuum that suddenly exploded with a Big Bang and a flash of light.

    Where is the quantum vacuum in, that they can envision a big Bang, and a flash of light?
    I believe they are imagining all this here on earth, in air, where an explosion does go off with a flash of light followed by a big Bang. Because the rest of their story follows the Doppler effect, which was observed as sound was traveling through air as associated with observing the firetruck sirens.
    As the story goes on, they explain the redshift of galaxies and stars the same grade school way, using the firetruck; When the firetruck is going away from the person, we see the red tail lights (the truck red shifting), and when the truck is coming towards us, we see its headlights (white shifting) and from this comes the cosmic microwave radiation as proof of the Big Bang!

    In cosmology, the redshift is just a Radio/microwave Telescope pointed up towards the dome, capturing the high energy transmissions coming from HAARP and the millions of other signals like cell phones, radio and television etc.

    But to keep robbing us the billions of dollars, each year they have to come up with some additional justification of the Big-Bang theory, no matter how childish the story!?
    Everything you said was misrepresented clap trap and dishonest ranting.
    EvidenceErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    @Evidence ;

    As I stated, check your dictionary.

    Theory is a very simple concept to understand.

    It doesn't matter how ridiculous or sensible a proposition might seem, until it can be unequivocally proved to be true or false then that proposition continues to be theoretical.

    The "Big Bang Story" is a valid theory, no matter how you care to view it. 
    But do not be held under a false impression. No scientist will claim that the "Big Bang Story" is unequivocally proved to be true. 

    Similarly, there is no unequivocal proof that "God"  does or does not exist. Therefore no matter how you care to view the notion of "God", it is still no more than a theoretical proposition, a theory no more or no less valid than the "Big Bang Story".
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    The Big-Bang Universe story:

    - *The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point.

    OK, now the universe here is not their universe with all the galaxies, planets, earth and life on it as we know it, but they call a quantum speck of unknown origins, in a 'point in space' before space existed, 'universe'. I don't understand why they refer to this quantum-vacuum, or a quantum force like gravity as a "universe"?
    Isn't that like referring to the air in my tires as a "car"?

    - *When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age

    This is talking about a quantum speck  of vacuum before time, .. or just as its getting ready to created time!?

    — *it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously.

    This is talking about a quantum vacuum-speck in a point in space before space existed, or before the speck created space within itself, .. expanding into what?
    In other words, what were Cosmologist in, .. or what do they imagine they are in as they watch and measure a "vacuum expanding faster than light"?
    Besides, how did they measure a "vacuum" expanding faster then light? I mean we can measure wind speed, .. but how does one measure the speed of a perfect vacuum?

    - *The work that goes into understanding the expanding universe comes from a combination of theoretical physics and direct observations by astronomers.

    Ah, here we go, I guess that explains my questions, only I would love to know the make of that telescope the astronomers were using to observe the quantum vacuum expand? Because I'm sure they watched other perfect-vacuums expand faster than the speed of light with these telescopes before, .. correct!?

    - *According to NASA, after inflation the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate. As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.

    So far we have a quantum vacuum expanding before space existed, traveling/expanding faster than the speed of light which they themselves say "nothing can go faster" of, to the size of a golf-ball as seen by astronomers who are witnessing this happening, .. in WHAT?
    I believe it was Lawrence Krauss that explained this in his "something from nothing" lectures, saying that the universe wasn't in something, it inflated/expanded within itself since nothing exists outside of the universe.

    So I ask, how do you match the universe to the size of a golf ball looking at it from the inside?
    So in one second as this vacuum cooled, it created matter, ..  filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos, .. HOW?
    Have scientists observed vacuum get hot, or cool, or create matter? Is that what they are smashing in the LHC, quantum vacuums?
    Or, how does a vacuum expand? It just goes against all logic of science?

    OK, any comments, admonishments, chastisement or corrections to my understanding of the "beginning" of the universe, aka the Big Bang so far?
    Everything you said was a deliberate and willful misrepresention of the science involved.




    OK, please tell me, .. is this a comment on a "scientific theory"?, .. does this have ANYTHING to do with science?

    - *The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point.

    If so, then here is my question: Was the present Universe this unimaginably hot, dense point? Or was a quantum particle that they are looking for by smashing bunches of particles 24/7 in the LHC an unimaginably a hot, dense point, which for some reason Big-Banged, or suddenly Inflated and over the 13 billion years create the the universe we see today?

    Or am I misrepresenting your science again?

    @Gooberry ; "Everything you said was a deliberate and willful misrepresentation"    is what all the Religions tell me, like when I ask Mormons at my door: "Who is Mormo?" and they get all bent out of shape, all offended because they don't know the answer. Well it's the same with you BB-Evolutionists, get all bent out of shape when I ask questions you can't answer.

    Just like Mormons who can't answer an important part of their religion, like; "who is Mormo?" shouldn't call themselves Mormons, .. for this same reason Big-Bang Evolution scientists who can't answer a scientific question shouldn't call themselves scientist, or try to pass off their religion as science.
    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Evidence ;

    As I stated, check your dictionary.

    Theory is a very simple concept to understand.

    It doesn't matter how ridiculous or sensible a proposition might seem, until it can be unequivocally proved to be true or false then that proposition continues to be theoretical.

    The "Big Bang Story" is a valid theory, no matter how you care to view it. 
    But do not be held under a false impression. No scientist will claim that the "Big Bang Story" is unequivocally proved to be true. 

    Similarly, there is no unequivocal proof that "God"  does or does not exist. Therefore no matter how you care to view the notion of "God", it is still no more than a theoretical proposition, a theory no more or no less valid than the "Big Bang Story".

    @Fredsnephew - The "Big Bang Story" is a valid theory, no matter how you care to view it. 
    But do not be held under a false impression. No scientist will claim that the "Big Bang Story" is unequivocally proved to be true.

    Good, thank you. That means no matter what questions I have of this story, it should be legitimate, correct? I wouldn't be "misrepresenting science" just because I asked a question.

    Can you please answer me the next question on my list in my post, about "- *when the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old, .."

    They claim that the universe/space is a vacuum,
    1. so before it created matter, it was just an expanding vacuum, correct?
    2. What medium was this golf ball sized universe in, and what was it expanding into?

    Proof of God;
    How can God not exist? You are confusing the finite created gods with Infinite and Eternal. Can't confuse finite with Infinite, that is one HUGE mistake that no real scientist would confuse.

    God is Infinite, so how can anything finite exist unless it is IN Infinite? Not 'infinity' but Infinite.
    How could anything expand, or go-on throughout infinity if there was no Infinite?

    Thank you, and please?
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    @Evidence ;

    You continue to wilfully misrepresent theory and science.

    Is this simply an antagonistic debating tactic.

    Or have you simply, never done any basic research into the definition of theory and science.


    EmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Sounds like pseudoscience to me @evidence
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Evidence ;

    You continue to wilfully misrepresent theory and science.

    Is this simply an antagonistic debating tactic.

    Or have you simply, never done any basic research into the definition of theory and science.




    You're going back on the definition of theory and science, which we all agree that it has very little if nothing to do with the BB-Story. You have to have observed at least one quantum speck pop out of nothing and from nowhere to be able to start it as a scientific theory, isn't that right? If I am wrong, please explain it instead of just tell me "look it up". I quote from so called scientific sources, specifically NASA and CERN, so is that why you feel antagonized, because my questions go directly to the source of the deception, .. and that you are afraid any remark towards it will reveal the pseudoscience of this whole story?

    Besides, I have pasted the actual definition of theory and science in these debates about both BB-story and evolution many times before, so why would you ask if I researched the definition of them or not?

    OK, how about this? Here is the Wikipedia article on the BB-Theory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    - The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of ...

    Is this even a theory?
    Is this science?

    If I went to meet your loving beautiful family, and after went to do a scientific report on the Evolution theory, and used your family as an example of a family of apes, wouldn't you want to voice your opinion about it?

    Today the Big Bang and Evolution stories are being presented both in documentaries, movies, school, in every day talk as "fact", but when someone like me starts to pick around the foundation of these "theories", all of a sudden you want to emphasize on the real, the true meaning of theory and science
    Here is an example how this Professor interprets cosmology and evolution:



    "It's not the peoples fault to say the earth is in the center of our solar system and not the sun, or that they don't know we evolved from simpler life forms it is our 'teaching' that is at fault here" (paraphrasing what he said)

    In other words, it has nothing to do with truth, but how effective has the MK-Ultra, or Religious indoctrination been so far.
    No different than the early RCC Christians, where they went out sword and all to "educate" people on Christianity, and the Trinity-gods. 
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    @Evidence ;

    You continue to wilfully misrepresent theory and science.

    Is this simply an antagonistic debating tactic.

    Or have you simply, never done any basic research into the definition of theory and science.




    You're going back on the definition of theory and science, which we all agree that it has very little if nothing to do with the BB-Story. You have to have observed at least one quantum speck pop out of nothing and from nowhere to be able to start it as a scientific theory, isn't that right? If I am wrong, please explain it instead of just tell me "look it up". I quote from so called scientific sources, specifically NASA and CERN, so is that why you feel antagonized, because my questions go directly to the source of the deception, .. and that you are afraid any remark towards it will reveal the pseudoscience of this whole story?

    Besides, I have pasted the actual definition of theory and science in these debates about both BB-story and evolution many times before, so why would you ask if I researched the definition of them or not?

    OK, how about this? Here is the Wikipedia article on the BB-Theory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    - The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of ...

    Is this even a theory?
    Is this science?

    If I went to meet your loving beautiful family, and after went to do a scientific report on the Evolution theory, and used your family as an example of a family of apes, wouldn't you want to voice your opinion about it?

    Today the Big Bang and Evolution stories are being presented both in documentaries, movies, school, in every day talk as "fact", but when someone like me starts to pick around the foundation of these "theories", all of a sudden you want to emphasize on the real, the true meaning of theory and science
    Here is an example how this Professor interprets cosmology and evolution:



    "It's not the peoples fault to say the earth is in the center of our solar system and not the sun, or that they don't know we evolved from simpler life forms it is our 'teaching' that is at fault here" (paraphrasing what he said)

    In other words, it has nothing to do with truth, but how effective has the MK-Ultra, or Religious indoctrination been so far.
    No different than the early RCC Christians, where they went out sword and all to "educate" people on Christianity, and the Trinity-gods. 

    So, can anyone
    @Pogue @Gooberry @Ampersand @Fredsnephew @Nope @LibertineStates ; @qipwbdeo

     who believes the Earth is a Globe which came about from a Big-Bang respond to my OP, and show us Flat Earth Realists, scientists, Altruists how wrong we are, .. how scientifically ignorant we are? Specifically answer my previous request:

    _______

    OK, how about this? Here is the Wikipedia article on the BB-Theory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    - The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of ...

    Is this even a theory?
    Is this science?

    _______

    Thank you, and please?

    EmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Evidence said:
    @Evidence ;

    You continue to wilfully misrepresent theory and science.

    Is this simply an antagonistic debating tactic.

    Or have you simply, never done any basic research into the definition of theory and science.




    You're going back on the definition of theory and science, which we all agree that it has very little if nothing to do with the BB-Story. You have to have observed at least one quantum speck pop out of nothing and from nowhere to be able to start it as a scientific theory, isn't that right? If I am wrong, please explain it instead of just tell me "look it up". I quote from so called scientific sources, specifically NASA and CERN, so is that why you feel antagonized, because my questions go directly to the source of the deception, .. and that you are afraid any remark towards it will reveal the pseudoscience of this whole story?

    Besides, I have pasted the actual definition of theory and science in these debates about both BB-story and evolution many times before, so why would you ask if I researched the definition of them or not?

    OK, how about this? Here is the Wikipedia article on the BB-Theory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    - The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of ...

    Is this even a theory?
    Is this science?

    If I went to meet your loving beautiful family, and after went to do a scientific report on the Evolution theory, and used your family as an example of a family of apes, wouldn't you want to voice your opinion about it?

    Today the Big Bang and Evolution stories are being presented both in documentaries, movies, school, in every day talk as "fact", but when someone like me starts to pick around the foundation of these "theories", all of a sudden you want to emphasize on the real, the true meaning of theory and science
    Here is an example how this Professor interprets cosmology and evolution:



    "It's not the peoples fault to say the earth is in the center of our solar system and not the sun, or that they don't know we evolved from simpler life forms it is our 'teaching' that is at fault here" (paraphrasing what he said)

    In other words, it has nothing to do with truth, but how effective has the MK-Ultra, or Religious indoctrination been so far.
    No different than the early RCC Christians, where they went out sword and all to "educate" people on Christianity, and the Trinity-gods. 

    So, can anyone
    @Pogue @Gooberry @Ampersand @Fredsnephew @Nope @LibertineStates ; @qipwbdeo

     who believes the Earth is a Globe which came about from a Big-Bang respond to my OP, and show us Flat Earth Realists, scientists, Altruists how wrong we are, .. how scientifically ignorant we are? Specifically answer my previous request:

    _______

    OK, how about this? Here is the Wikipedia article on the BB-Theory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    - The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of ...

    Is this even a theory?
    Is this science?

    _______

    Thank you, and please?


    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Evidence said:
    @Evidence ;

    You continue to wilfully misrepresent theory and science.

    Is this simply an antagonistic debating tactic.

    Or have you simply, never done any basic research into the definition of theory and science.




    You're going back on the definition of theory and science, which we all agree that it has very little if nothing to do with the BB-Story. You have to have observed at least one quantum speck pop out of nothing and from nowhere to be able to start it as a scientific theory, isn't that right? If I am wrong, please explain it instead of just tell me "look it up". I quote from so called scientific sources, specifically NASA and CERN, so is that why you feel antagonized, because my questions go directly to the source of the deception, .. and that you are afraid any remark towards it will reveal the pseudoscience of this whole story?

    Besides, I have pasted the actual definition of theory and science in these debates about both BB-story and evolution many times before, so why would you ask if I researched the definition of them or not?

    OK, how about this? Here is the Wikipedia article on the BB-Theory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    - The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of ...

    Is this even a theory?
    Is this science?

    If I went to meet your loving beautiful family, and after went to do a scientific report on the Evolution theory, and used your family as an example of a family of apes, wouldn't you want to voice your opinion about it?

    Today the Big Bang and Evolution stories are being presented both in documentaries, movies, school, in every day talk as "fact", but when someone like me starts to pick around the foundation of these "theories", all of a sudden you want to emphasize on the real, the true meaning of theory and science
    Here is an example how this Professor interprets cosmology and evolution:



    "It's not the peoples fault to say the earth is in the center of our solar system and not the sun, or that they don't know we evolved from simpler life forms it is our 'teaching' that is at fault here" (paraphrasing what he said)

    In other words, it has nothing to do with truth, but how effective has the MK-Ultra, or Religious indoctrination been so far.
    No different than the early RCC Christians, where they went out sword and all to "educate" people on Christianity, and the Trinity-gods. 

    So, can anyone
    @Pogue @Gooberry @Ampersand @Fredsnephew @Nope @LibertineStates ; @qipwbdeo

     who believes the Earth is a Globe which came about from a Big-Bang respond to my OP, and show us Flat Earth Realists, scientists, Altruists how wrong we are, .. how scientifically ignorant we are? Specifically answer my previous request:

    _______

    OK, how about this? Here is the Wikipedia article on the BB-Theory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    - The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of ...

    Is this even a theory?
    Is this science?

    _______

    Thank you, and please?

    Yes, and yes.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    Evidence said:
    @Evidence ;

    You continue to wilfully misrepresent theory and science.

    Is this simply an antagonistic debating tactic.

    Or have you simply, never done any basic research into the definition of theory and science.




    You're going back on the definition of theory and science, which we all agree that it has very little if nothing to do with the BB-Story. You have to have observed at least one quantum speck pop out of nothing and from nowhere to be able to start it as a scientific theory, isn't that right? If I am wrong, please explain it instead of just tell me "look it up". I quote from so called scientific sources, specifically NASA and CERN, so is that why you feel antagonized, because my questions go directly to the source of the deception, .. and that you are afraid any remark towards it will reveal the pseudoscience of this whole story?

    Besides, I have pasted the actual definition of theory and science in these debates about both BB-story and evolution many times before, so why would you ask if I researched the definition of them or not?

    OK, how about this? Here is the Wikipedia article on the BB-Theory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    - The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of ...

    Is this even a theory?
    Is this science?

    If I went to meet your loving beautiful family, and after went to do a scientific report on the Evolution theory, and used your family as an example of a family of apes, wouldn't you want to voice your opinion about it?

    Today the Big Bang and Evolution stories are being presented both in documentaries, movies, school, in every day talk as "fact", but when someone like me starts to pick around the foundation of these "theories", all of a sudden you want to emphasize on the real, the true meaning of theory and science
    Here is an example how this Professor interprets cosmology and evolution:



    "It's not the peoples fault to say the earth is in the center of our solar system and not the sun, or that they don't know we evolved from simpler life forms it is our 'teaching' that is at fault here" (paraphrasing what he said)

    In other words, it has nothing to do with truth, but how effective has the MK-Ultra, or Religious indoctrination been so far.
    No different than the early RCC Christians, where they went out sword and all to "educate" people on Christianity, and the Trinity-gods. 

    So, can anyone
    @Pogue @Gooberry @Ampersand @Fredsnephew @Nope @LibertineStates ; @qipwbdeo

     who believes the Earth is a Globe which came about from a Big-Bang respond to my OP, and show us Flat Earth Realists, scientists, Altruists how wrong we are, .. how scientifically ignorant we are? Specifically answer my previous request:

    _______

    OK, how about this? Here is the Wikipedia article on the BB-Theory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    - The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of ...

    Is this even a theory?
    Is this science?

    _______

    Thank you, and please?

    Yes, and yes.

    What does the Big Bang (explosion, chaos) have to do with cosmos?

    Cosmos is originally a Greek word, meaning both "order" and "world" because the ancient Greeks thought that the world was perfectly harmonious and impeccably put in order.

    What does our heaven with stars that pagans named as their gods have anything to do with science? Has any scientist, or anyone ever go up to heaven and travel to one of those stars up there and examine it? This whole star worship goes way back before we even had airplanes. Traveling to the stars is what children's fairytales were made of, and what people built their Religions on, and as we can see from NASA, it all remains a fairytale, with drawings and now CGI cartoons.

    This whole space thing with planets and galaxies, and black holes, and muons, leptons and croutons is as fake as this Stephen Hawking's is;



    You could get a lot more information on the cosmos by talking to Chris Hemsworth, than talking to this New-fake Stephen Hawking's answering machine, .. but I wouldn't consider that talking about an actual theory, unless Thor's planet Asgard is also considered science? Never mind, don't answer that since NASA just found planet Tatooine.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=star+wars+planet+tatooine&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitlL-2scDZAhUD8WMKHSx5BoEQsAQITg&biw=1422&bih=689

    Please tell me what is the difference between these pictures of Tatooine and the rest of NASA's planets like Mars, Venus, Jupiter?

    Oh, maybe you mean the scientific study of moon rocks, or the R/C Mars Rover in the desert that some of those poor NASA scientists were made to believe is on the star the pagan gods worshippers named Mars!? .. LOL.

    Besides the outrageous science fiction fairytales made up about space, planets, galaxies, worm holes, folded space fabric time travel that came about by an explosion, what empirical evidence do you have for this Big Bang that we could consider a "theory"?? 
    someone234Erfisflat
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    This is a fascinating social experiment. Throw four fools who are all foolish in a similar way into the same room and they all end up making each other feel smart.
    PogueEvidenceErfisflat
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    “What does the Big Bang (explosion, chaos)...”


    The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion.


    “...have to do with cosmos? Cosmos is originally a Greek word, meaning both "order" and "world" because the ancient Greeks thought that the world was perfectly harmonious and impeccably put in order.”


    Pay close attention, this is a complex and difficult scientific explanation to wrap your head around, but here goes: The greek definition of the word cosmos, has no relevance to to the validity to the Big Bang theory.




    “What does our heaven with stars that pagans named as their gods have anything to do with science?”


    If by “heaven” you mean space: science explains what you see, why it is the way it is, how it formed.


    “Has any scientist, or anyone ever go up to heaven and travel to one of those stars up there and examine it?”


    Actually yes, in a manner of speaking. We have collected star dust from our sun, we can observe cosmic rays from or sun: and we know that the light given off from hot objects tells us what they’re made of (and what that light travelled through)


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_(spacecraft)


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy



    “This whole star worship goes way back before we even had airplanes. Traveling to the stars is what children's fairytales were made of, and what people built their Religions on, and as we can see from NASA, it all remains a fairytale, with drawings and now CGI cartoons.”


    A Rant, for which you provide no evidence, is not an argument.


    “This whole space thing with planets”


    Which anyone can see with a cheap telescope....


    “and galaxies”


    Which anyone can see with a cheap telescope....


    “and black holes, and muons, leptons and croutons is as fake as this Stephen Hawking's is;”


    A Rant about how fake everything is, for which you provide no evidence, is not an argument.



    “You could get a lot more information on the cosmos by talking to Chris Hemsworth, than talking to this New-fake Stephen Hawking's answering machine, .. but I wouldn't consider that talking about an actual theory, unless Thor's planet Asgard is also considered science?Never mind, don't answer that since NASA just found planet Tatooine.”


    A Rant about how fake everything is, for which you provide no evidence, is not an argument.


    “https://www.google.com/search?q=star+wars+planet+tatooine&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitlL-2scDZAhUD8WMKHSx5BoEQsAQITg&biw=1422&bih=689


    Please tell me what is the difference between these pictures of Tatooine and the rest of NASA's planets like Mars, Venus, Jupiter?”


    A Rant about how fake everything is, for which you provide no evidence, is not an argument.


    But for your information, you can spend $100 on a telescope and see details of Venus, mars, Jupiter and Saturn. When things objectively exist, it helps credibility. And makes people like you who claim they don’t, look particularly foolish.


    “Oh, maybe you mean the scientific study of moon rocks, or the R/C Mars Rover in the desert that some of those poor NASA scientists were made to believe is on the star the pagan gods worshippers named Mars!? .. LOL.”


    A Rant about how fake everything is, for which you provide no evidence, is not an argument.


    “Besides the outrageous science fiction fairytales made up about space,”


    Dishonest claim for which you have presented no evidence.

     

    “planets, galaxies”


    Which regular every day people can actually observe


    “worm holes, folded space fabric time travel that came about by an explosion”


    This is literally nonsense: nothing in this sentence reflects any theory or accepted science: it sounds like you’re just making things up.


    “ what empirical evidence do you have for this Big Bang that we could consider a "theory"??”


    Off the top of my head:


    The cavendish experiment:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment


    Eddington’s solar eclipse experiment:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919


    Gravitational red shift of light:

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2010JHA....41...41H/0000041.000.html


    Time dilation occurs

    http://alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilationExperiments.htm


    (Proves Gravity and relativity)


    Discovery of Cepheid variable stars whose pulsation period matches their luminosity.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable


    Then that everything in the universe appears to be flying apart from everything else with a speed relationship proportional to distance.


    https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html


    Then, there is the prediction that there will be an underlying background radiation that corresponds to black body radiation of a cooling plasma that becomes transparent:


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background


    Then there are the predictions relating to the relative abundance of light particles in the universe:


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis


    There are far, far more: but as I strongly suspect you will not acknowledge anything Written so far, I don’t want to spend too much more time.

    Pogue
  • JustIgnoreMeJustIgnoreMe 47 Pts   -  
    @Evidence
    Evidence said:
    Ampersand said:
    Also, religious figures like the pope stated that the big bang was real.
    Yet, I'm not religious, I'm agnostic.

    Pogue said:
    A singularity got too dense so it exploded and the universe is still expanding so a logical conclusion is that it had to originate from a single point. Also, not 93 billion miles. The light could not reach us because the universe is not that old. 

    Yet, I thought it was an infinitely dense perfect singularity? 

    My point was, if the universe is really 13 billion years old, then how do we detect radiation and light from over 93 billion light years away?

    I guess you don't disagree with that.

    Unless you want to provide a direct reference so we've some idea what you're talking about, we haven't.

    We can detect radiation from 43 billion light years away due to the expansion of the universe but not 93.


    @Ampersand - We can detect radiation from 43 billion light years away due to the expansion of the universe but not 93.

    OK, so how do you get that you are seeing specks of light from 43 billion light years away when your globe/BB-Universe is only 14 billion years old??

    1. How fast is the universe expanding?
    2. some galaxies are claimed to be coming/crashing into each other like your Andromeda galaxy into the Milky Way, so HOW on Gods Flat Earth can people looking through a telescope KNOW that "this speck of light-dot 41 billion light years away here, is expanding away from that speck of light 43 billion light years away there!?"
    They all could be Big-Crunching for all they know? And this while spinning and twirling through space at near light speed too.

    3. What about Relativistic effects like time dilation, length contraction and mass gain on you on globe-earth, this Milky way Galaxy, relative to the speck of light which contains trillions of star in that one speck of assumed galaxy? That can really screw up distance, time and size of the mass they they are seeing vs what that may really be!?



    1) For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per second.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
    2) Geometry/Trigonometry, red-shift, spectroscopy



    3) To get better measurements, we now use non-earth based instruments - like Hubble and Gaia
    qipwbdeoEvidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:

    @Gooberry

    “What does the Big Bang (explosion, chaos)...”

    The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion.

    Me - You ever put a cherry bomb in a watermelon and blow it up? I guess I can get Sci-fientific about it and say "the watermelon suddenly expanded".

    But in the BB-case, it was a vacuum that 'suddenly expanded' the quantum watermelon.


    “...have to do with cosmos? Cosmos is originally a Greek word, meaning both "order" and "world" because the ancient Greeks thought that the world was perfectly harmonious and impeccably put in order.”

    Pay close attention, this is a complex and difficult scientific explanation to wrap your head around, but here goes: The greek definition of the word cosmos, has no relevance to to the validity to the Big Bang theory.

    OK, this is what we got so far:

    1. The Big Bang was not an explosion

    2. The cosmos has nothing to do with the universe.


    “What does our heaven with stars that pagans named as their gods have anything to do with science?”

    If by “heaven” you mean space: science explains what you see, why it is the way it is, how it formed.

    You mean the Big Bang story that goes something like this?: "Millions and billions of years ago there was a quantum speck fluctuating in and out of nothing, then in a moment in time before time, it started to get denser and hotter, until the vacuum inside got so dense it created 3.2 gazillion degrees, and the vacuum suddenly expanded, and in only minutes it got as big as we see it today.

    “Has any scientist, or anyone ever go up to heaven and travel to one of those stars up there and examine it?”

    Actually yes, in a manner of speaking. We have collected star dust from our sun, we can observe cosmic rays from or sun: and we know that the light given off from hot objects tells us what they’re made of (and what that light travelled through)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_(spacecraft)

    - Stardust was a 390 kilogram robotic space probe launched by NASA on 7 February 1999. Its primary mission was to collect dust samples from the coma of comet Wild 2, as well as samples of cosmic dust, and return these to Earth for analysis. It was the first sample return mission of its kind. En route to comet Wild 2, the craft also flew by and studied the asteroid 5535 Annefrank. The primary mission was successfully completed on 15 January 2006, when the sample return capsule returned to Earth

    So the spacecraft Stardust was sent by snake-tongued NASssA to collect star dust, cosmic dust, and passed by Anne Frank and collect some of her dust too, separated all these dusts in a capsule, came shooting down burning through the atmosphere, successfully completing its mission on 15 January 2006, .. if you think I believe this croc-of-, I would have to be in a coma and call me Wild too. My God, does anyone actually read this NASA ?

    This goes for the countless perfect dockings with the ISS over the past 18 years, .. just like in the movies. Yet look how many shipping accidents we have where ships can't even dock with a port riding on water. It has become soo difficult, that they have to spend the extra money to have them tugged in, and tugged out, .. yet here is NASA's 18 year PERFECT docking in the vacuum of space!

    You insult me sir, this goes right along with you BB-Evolutionists calling me, and my family animals, apes who descended from rats!

    Keep it up buddy and you and me gonna have a "Dance off"!

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

    Ah, the study of the interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiation, .. how light works in the vacuum of space, correct?

    Wait, I mean they did do these "scientific observations on light" by taking prisms, and going outside the ISS-lab, and videoing/filming all this in the vacuum of space, right?

    Like the Doppler effect used to learn what happens to expanding stars and planets since the effect only works on earth with air, they wouldn't make that same mistake trying to learn about the Big-Bang doing tests on earth with all this dust especially with all that alumina particles floating around in our chem-trailed air now would they?

    -In quantum mechanical systems, the analogous resonance is a coupling of two quantum mechanical stationary states of one system, such as an atom, via an oscillatory source of energy such as a photon. The coupling of the two states is strongest when the energy of the source matches the energy difference between the two states.

    Oh my, they sure did, .. quantum mechanics is always done in earths atmosphere, usually at Starbucks in the CERNS LHC cafeteria over some coffee.

    “This whole star worship goes way back before we even had airplanes. Traveling to the stars is what children's fairytales were made of, and what people built their Religions on, and as we can see from NASA, it all remains a fairytale, with drawings and now CGI cartoons.”

    A Rant, for which you provide no evidence, is not an argument.

    @Erfisflat and @SilverishGoldNova already posted hundreds of pictures of artist rendered images of stars, planets spacecraft, moon landings, and so have others, I'm not going to post more.

    “This whole space thing with planets”

    Which anyone can see with a cheap telescope....

    They are stars in heaven, and yes, I have observed them, and they are still stars in heaven. All different shapes and sizes, not ONE looked like the drawings NASA shows us.

    “and galaxies”

    Which anyone can see with a cheap telescope....

    .. and Annefrank too, with a cheap telescope, or if we can't see any of this, and only see a lots of stars, we can log into NASA-Images, right?


    “and black holes, and muons, leptons and croutons is as fake as this Stephen Hawking's is;”

    A Rant about how fake everything is, for which you provide no evidence, is not an argument.

    Yes, they look fake, and when you look at the small print on the bottom of each picture, it also says: "Artist rendered images, .. because they have to be!"

    “You could get a lot more information on the cosmos by talking to Chris Hemsworth, than talking to this New-fake Stephen Hawking's answering machine, .. but I wouldn't consider that talking about an actual theory, unless Thor's planet Asgard is also considered science?Never mind, don't answer that since NASA just found planet Tatooine.”

    A Rant about how fake everything is, for which you provide no evidence, is not an argument.

    “https://www.google.com/search?q=star+wars+planet+tatooine&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitlL-2scDZAhUD8WMKHSx5BoEQsAQITg&biw=1422&bih=689

    Please tell me what is the difference between these pictures of Tatooine and the rest of NASA's planets like Mars, Venus, Jupiter?”

    A Rant about how fake everything is, for which you provide no evidence, is not an argument.

    But for your information, you can spend $100 on a telescope and see details of Venus, mars, Jupiter and Saturn. When things objectively exist, it helps credibility. And makes people like you who claim they don’t, look particularly foolish.

     I have a 10" Celestron and see rings around Saturn, reddish color on Mars etc. And the rest are all different too, some sparkly, some like a disks facing us, another blue one that changes shapes, .. ah you know what I mean, we shown you hundreds of them. NOT ONE like the artist rendered ones that NASA shows. 

    “Oh, maybe you mean the scientific study of moon rocks, or the R/C Mars Rover in the desert that some of those poor NASA scientists were made to believe is on the star the pagan gods worshippers named Mars!? .. LOL.”

    A Rant about how fake everything is, for which you provide no evidence, is not an argument.

    been there and done that, and you guys keep repeating this same rant, like when you need to answer something, you guys go to this "happy place" and repeat this over and over again.

    “Besides the outrageous science fiction fairytales made up about space,”

    Dishonest claim for which you have presented no evidence.

     “planets, galaxies”

    Which regular every day people can actually observe

    Are you serious? So "everyday people can observe the NASA universe expanding, see black holes in the Space fabric,  and the ones farther are the red ones, right? Because of the Earths air Doppler effect on them, .. but of course.

    “worm holes, folded space fabric time travel that came about by an explosion”

    This is literally nonsense: nothing in this sentence reflects any theory or accepted science: it sounds like you’re just making things up.


    No, I was listening to Stephen Hawking's 70's answering machine. It's there I seen these things.


    “ what empirical evidence do you have for this Big Bang that we could consider a "theory"??”

    Off the top of my head:


    The cavendish experiment:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

    Eddington’s solar eclipse experiment:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919

    Gravitational red shift of light:

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2010JHA....41...41H/0000041.000.html

    Time dilation occurs

    http://alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilationExperiments.htm


    (Proves Gravity and relativity)


    Discovery of Cepheid variable stars whose pulsation period matches their luminosity.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable


    Then that everything in the universe appears to be flying apart from everything else with a speed relationship proportional to distance.

    https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html


    Every last one of those is made up , made up by religious fanatics that have taken science fiction too far, and now are stuck in a universe of their own making with NASA raking in Billions a month, so of course they can afford some good science fiction writers to come up with some really bazar quantum boson Star wars lingo. That Is All that the Big-Bang Story is about.

    When I start reading about ANY of these sci-fi topics I just want to gag.


    Then, there is the prediction that there will be an underlying background radiation that corresponds to black body radiation of a cooling plasma that becomes transparent:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

    Then there are the predictions relating to the relative abundance of light particles in the universe:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

    There are far, far more: but as I strongly suspect you will not acknowledge anything Written so far, I don’t want to spend too much more time.

    Yes, every one of them. To even talk about them one has to get in the science fiction lingo of it, it's like listening to Trekkies, and coming into their conversation with a realistic view. Asking if they expect the Klingons to visit earth soon, and if there was anything me an my family should do to make their welcome a little more pleasant, by maybe offering them tea and biscuits!?

    Of course they will just look at me uneasily and wonder if I'm crazy or not, and ask me to go read up on the Klingons, because I know nothing about them, the system they live in, their planet, and so on, because:
    ", Klingons don't drink tea! You're really aren't you?"

    But fine, I'll play.
    Tell me about the first few quantum micro seconds after the quantum universe fluctuated out of nothing, and then "suddenly expanded" with a Big silent swish. So ONE question:

    Q. What is your Big-Bang Universe expanding into, or in?
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    “You ever put a cherry bomb in a watermelon and blow it up? I guess I can get Sci-fientific about it and say "the watermelon suddenly expanded".

    But in the BB-case, it was a vacuum that 'suddenly expanded' the quantum watermelon.”


    Yes, it’s an expansion, not an explosion. If you blow air into a balloon it starts expanding. There is a difference if you are interested in accurately representing the point of view you are opposing, rather than engaging in misrepresentation and angry rants.



    “OK, this is what we got so far:

    1. The Big Bang was not an explosion

    2. The cosmos has nothing to do with the universe.”


    Then you read it wrong, or are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.


    The word cosmos, and how the Greeks defined or thought about it, has little bearing on what the Big Bang theory says.





    “You mean the Big Bang story that goes something like this?: "Millions and billions of years ago there was a quantum speck fluctuating in and out of nothing”


    The big bang theory does not say this.


    “then in a moment in time before time”


    The big bang theory does not say this.



    “started to get denser and hotter”


    The big bang theory does not say this.


    “until the vacuum inside got so dense it created 3.2 gazillion degrees”


    The big bang theory does not say this.


    “and the vacuum suddenly expanded”


    The big bang theory does not say this.


    “and in only minutes it got as big as we see it today.”


    The big bang theory does not say this.


    What in earth are you talking about. This is like an explanation of the Big Bang theory from a 4 year old.


    Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what the Big Bang is.


    This is called bearing false witness.



    “So the spacecraft Stardust was sent by snake-tongued NASssA to collect star dust, cosmic dust, and passed by Anne Frank and collect some of her dust too”


    Do you not understand that it was from the tail of a commet named Anne frank not actually Anne Frank? Do you understand the difference because at this point I don’t know.


    “separated all these dusts in a capsule, came shooting down burning through the atmosphere, successfully completing its mission on 15 January 2006”


    Yes.



    .”if you think I believe this croc-of-, I would have to be in a coma and call me Wild too. My God, does anyone actually read this NASA ?”


    Yes; normal people who aren’t mentally ill with some paranoid delusion disorder. 


    There is literally no evidence, or reason to believe that NASA is some evil organization; the only reason you’ve given anyone to not believe NASA is an assortment of angry rants based on nothing more than your own mental limitations and logical fallacies.




    “This goes for the countless perfect dockings with the ISS over the past 18 years, .. just like in the movies. “


    This is a rant. No evidence, no argument. Just an Angry rant.


    “Yet look how many shipping accidents we have where ships can't even dock with a port riding on water. It has become soo difficult, that they have to spend the extra money to have them tugged in, and tugged out, .. yet here is NASA's 18 year PERFECT docking in the vacuum of space!”


    This is a rant. No evidence, no argument. Just an Angry rant.


    “You insult me sir, this goes right along with you BB-Evolutionists calling me, and my family animals, apes who descended from rats!”


    No one says that. Stop lying



    “Ah, the study of the interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiation, .. how light works in the vacuum of space, correct?”


    Much more than that. How light works when it interacts with matter.


    “Wait, I mean they did do these "scientific observations on light" by taking prisms, and going outside the ISS-lab, and videoing/filming all this in the vacuum of space, right?”


    Yes: unless you’re trying to argue light from the sun doesn’t come from the sun: we know how light interacts with matter, and can tell how light from the sun interacts with matter with the sun by looking at the light, you thunderous cretin.



    “Like the Doppler effect used to learn what happens to expanding stars and planets since the effect only works on earth with air”


    It’s called redshift: it’s a different thing. Why are you confusing two different principles?


    “they wouldn't make that same mistake trying to learn about the Big-Bang doing tests on earth with all this dust especially with all that alumina particles floating around in our chem-trailed air now would they?”


    This is a rant. No evidence, no argument. Just an Angry rant.


    “Oh my, they sure did, .. quantum mechanics is always done in earths atmosphere, usually at Starbucks in the CERNS LHC cafeteria over some coffee.”


    This is a rant. No evidence, no argument. Just an Angry rant.


    “already posted hundreds of pictures of artist rendered images of stars, planets spacecraft, moon landings, and so have others, I'm not going to post more.”


    And? This is a rant. No evidence, no argument. Just an Angry rant.



    “They are stars in heaven, and yes, I have observed them, and they are still stars in heaven. All different shapes and sizes not ONE looked like the drawings NASA shows us.”


    Then yes you’re lying when you say they don’t look like NASA images; because they do.


    “.. and Annefrank too, with a cheap telescope, or if we can't see any of this, and only see a lots of stars, we can log into NASA-Images, right?”


    But we can see any of this.


    Given the quality of your argument, and the intelligence you have demonstrated here,  if you can’t see any of the images in space: 


    • Try taking the lens cap off the telescope.
    • Try making your observations at night time, not the day.
    • Point your telescope at the sky, not the ground.


    Given your post quality and argument, I suspect the reason your not observing what the rest of the world sees is one of those three things.



    EvidenceErfisflat
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Evidence
    “You insult me sir, this goes right along with you BB-Evolutionists calling me, and my family animals, apes who descended from rats!”
    Humans are animals. They fit the definition perfectly.

    “Like the Doppler effect used to learn what happens to expanding stars and planets since the effect only works on earth with air”
    I caused by the expanding of space. As space expands every where. The space between the waves of the electromagnetic waves increases and the waves become red shifted as they have a longer wave length. Also objects get farther from each other.
    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Gooberry ;

    “You ever put a cherry bomb in a watermelon and blow it up? I guess I can get Sci-fientific about it and say "the watermelon suddenly expanded".

    But in the BB-case, it was a vacuum that 'suddenly expanded' the quantum watermelon.”

    Yes, it’s an expansion, not an explosion. If you blow air into a balloon it starts expanding. There is a difference if you are interested in accurately representing the point of view you are opposing, rather than engaging in misrepresentation and angry rants.

    Angry rants? I am inquiring about your BB-Story. Now, yes, if you blow into a balloon it starts to expand, but what happens when you try to suck on an empty balloon, .. what it Big-Bangs, like your NASA universe?

    I know, now I misrepresented your BB-theory again, right?


    “OK, this is what we got so far:

    1. The Big Bang was not an explosion

    2. The cosmos has nothing to do with the universe.”

    Then you read it wrong, or are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

    The word cosmos, and how the Greeks defined or thought about it, has little bearing on what the Big Bang theory says.

    I understand, the Greeks were smart, and invented many gods out of the stars of heaven by many-a-strange stories, .. how they came into existence, but I agree that they would never have made up a story like this Big-Bang Story, never. And to call it science, I doubt it very much. Especially if you told them about the expanding vacuum.

    “You mean the Big Bang story that goes something like this?: "Millions and billions of years ago there was a quantum speck fluctuating in and out of nothing”

    The big bang theory does not say this.

    Yes it does, Lawrence Krauss in at least one of his lectures on "something from nothing" explained that the "God particle", which still is an unknown particle fluctuated in and out of nothing.

    And when the expansion came up, he said it really didn't expand into anything, but that since the universe is all there is in existence, it expanded within itself. That there is no outside of the universe.

    My question was: then how did they estimate it expanding to the size of a tennis ball?

    “then in a moment in time before time”

    The big bang theory does not say this.

    Yes it did, in Wikipedia it used to say about the universes infinitely dense state as: "In a point in space", but back then I was debating it with other Big-Bangers, and someone went and changed it.


    “started to get denser and hotter”

    The big bang theory does not say this.

    Singularity

    Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[14] This singularity indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity beyond the end of the Planck epoch.

    This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[15] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[16][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae and measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, the time that has passed since that event — otherwise known as the "age of the universe" — is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years.[17] The agreement of independent measurements of this age supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the characteristics of the universe.

    Despite being extremely dense at this time—far denser than is usually required to form a black hole—the universe did not re-collapse into a black hole. This may be explained by considering that commonly-used calculations and limits for gravitational collapse are usually based upon objects of relatively constant size, such as stars, and do not apply to rapidly expanding space such as the Big Bang.


    “until the vacuum inside got so dense it created 3.2 gazillion degrees”


    The big bang theory does not say this.

    “and the vacuum suddenly expanded”

    The big bang theory does not say this.

    “and in only minutes it got as big as we see it today.”

    The big bang theory does not say this.

    What in earth are you talking about. This is like an explanation of the Big Bang theory from a 4 year old.

    Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what the Big Bang is.

    This is called bearing false witness.

    Yes, I was simplifying the unintelligible, sci-fi rhetoric so even a four year old could understand it.

    “So the spacecraft Stardust was sent by snake-tongued NASssA to collect star dust, cosmic dust, and passed by Anne Frank and collect some of her dust too”

    Do you not understand that it was from the tail of a commet named Anne frank not actually Anne Frank? Do you understand the difference because at this point I don’t know.

    The people at NASA, CERN and the LHC have some weird religious belief system, so how would I know they are not talking about actual Anne Frank?

    “separated all these dusts in a capsule, came shooting down burning through the atmosphere, successfully completing its mission on 15 January 2006”

    Yes.

    I have no more questions your honor.

    ”if you think I believe this croc-of-, I would have to be in a coma and call me Wild too. My God, does anyone actually read this NASA ?”

    Yes; normal people who aren’t mentally ill with some paranoid delusion disorder. 

    I worked with very precise Inspection instruments, and even with a 2 foot thick granite table that was sitting on 6 foot thick cement floor, in temperature controlled conditions we could pick up the smallest vibrations which could throw us off, and now imagine doing all this in a vacuum floating in space, and being able to follow imaginary meteors, picking up star dust, then finding earth and landing all by little jettison adjustments on an unmanned space vehicle.

    Your dreaming. You have actually left our earth and went bye, bye into Never-Never land. I know what we can do, and to have this done like from 1968 on, in the vacuum of space, floating free, .. you have to wake up buddy, it never happened.

    There is literally no evidence, or reason to believe that NASA is some evil organization; the only reason you’ve given anyone to not believe NASA is an assortment of angry rants based on nothing more than your own mental limitations and logical fallacies.


    OK, thank you. That's all your honor, no more questions, my opponent here has lost his mind, 


    “This goes for the countless perfect dockings with the ISS over the past 18 years, .. just like in the movies. “

    This is a rant. No evidence, no argument. Just an Angry rant.

    No evidence? How many dockings has NASA performed over the 18 years?


    “Yet look how many shipping accidents we have where ships can't even dock with a port riding on water. It has become soo difficult, that they have to spend the extra money to have them tugged in, and tugged out, .. yet here is NASA's 18 year PERFECT docking in the vacuum of space!”

    This is a rant. No evidence, no argument. Just an Angry rant.

    Yes, avoiding to even acknowledge such impossible feats even ONCE would be like admitting you believe in Peter Pan can teach you how to fly.

    “You insult me sir, this goes right along with you BB-Evolutionists calling me, and my family animals, apes who descended from rats!”

    No one says that. Stop lying

    BB-Evolution says that.


    “Ah, the study of the interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiation, .. how light works in the vacuum of space, correct?”

    Much more than that. How light works when it interacts with matter.


    “Wait, I mean they did do these "scientific observations on light" by taking prisms, and going outside the ISS-lab, and videoing/filming all this in the vacuum of space, right?”


    Yes: unless you’re trying to argue light from the sun doesn’t come from the sun: we know how light interacts with matter, and can tell how light from the sun interacts with matter with the sun by looking at the light, you thunderous cretin.

    Show me ONE such experiment done outside the ISS?


    “Like the Doppler effect used to learn what happens to expanding stars and planets since the effect only works on earth with air”

    It’s called redshift: it’s a different thing. Why are you confusing two different principles?

    I am confusing two very different principles, .. me? Who is equating the distancing of objects in a vacuum with how sound travels in air?


    “they wouldn't make that same mistake trying to learn about the Big-Bang doing tests on earth with all this dust especially with all that alumina particles floating around in our chem-trailed air now would they?”

    his is a rant. No evidence, no argument. Just an Angry rant.

    “Oh my, they sure did, .. quantum mechanics is always done in earths atmosphere, usually at Starbucks in the CERNS LHC cafeteria over some coffee.”

    This is a rant. No evidence, no argument. Just an Angry rant.

    already posted hundreds of pictures of artist rendered images of stars, planets spacecraft, moon landings, and so have others, I'm not going to post more.”

    And? This is a rant. No evidence, no argument. Just an Angry rant.

    Rant, ..


    “They are stars in heaven, and yes, I have observed them, and they are still stars in heaven. All different shapes and sizes not ONE looked like the drawings NASA shows us.”


    Then yes you’re lying when you say they don’t look like NASA images; because they do.

    No they don't, some do, but like a star, not how NASA made them into planets. They are objects, not planets. Especially the disk ones, and ones we shown you guys taken by regular people, matched up to NASA, is nothing like the real thing.


    “.. and Annefrank too, with a cheap telescope, or if we can't see any of this, and only see a lots of stars, we can log into NASA-Images, right?”

    But we can see any of this.

    Given the quality of your argument, and the intelligence you have demonstrated here,  if you can’t see any of the images in space: 

    • Try taking the lens cap off the telescope.
    • Try making your observations at night time, not the day.
    • Point your telescope at the sky, not the ground.

    Given your post quality and argument, I suspect the reason your not observing what the rest of the world sees is one of those three things.


    Amazing when you know you've been had, how you BB-Evolutionists will belittle, degrade, ridicule since you got away with so much (trillions of dollars for a science fiction space program) and that you can chem trail us, poison our food and water and we can't do nothing about it, you can throw some rhetoric out, the rest of the questions you just ignore just like NASA does, and you remain a winner!?

    No you won't! And your reign is coming to an end.



    Take the lens cap off, .. what you really mean is "put the NASA lens cap on with the artist rendered images" don't you?

    Lets go through this starting with your singularity, and YES, I will ask 4th grade questions, and analyze your answers by reciting them in layman's terms,
    like the splitting of the atoms - "holding two uranium bars apart from each other".

    Singularity

    Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[14] This singularity indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity beyond the end of the Planck epoch.

    This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[15] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[16][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae and measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, the time that has passed since that event — otherwise known as the "age of the universe" — is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years.[17] The agreement of independent measurements of this age supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the characteristics of the universe.

    Despite being extremely dense at this time—far denser than is usually required to form a black hole—the universe did not re-collapse into a black hole. This may be explained by considering that commonly-used calculations and limits for gravitational collapse are usually based upon objects of relatively constant size, such as stars, and do not apply to rapidly expanding space such as the Big Bang.

    .. Down to China Town baby! are you ready?
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Nope said:
    Evidence
    “You insult me sir, this goes right along with you BB-Evolutionists calling me, and my family animals, apes who descended from rats!”
    Humans are animals. They fit the definition perfectly.

    “Like the Doppler effect used to learn what happens to expanding stars and planets since the effect only works on earth with air”
    I caused by the expanding of space. As space expands every where. The space between the waves of the electromagnetic waves increases and the waves become red shifted as they have a longer wave length. Also objects get farther from each other.

    @Nope said: Humans are animals. They fit the definition perfectly.

    So why did the Negros get offended when they were displayed in zoos both in Europe and here in New York, specifically Ota Benga?
    Or why do evolving apes walk right through doors on buildings that specifically says: "No animals of any kind allowed!" ??

    I shown you from the Creator Himself how we were created, and why? Same design, same source (dust), but obviously very different from animals.
    God created man first, then animals to accompany him.

    We refer to all animals in the same context, and  humans is automatically understood as distinct from animals. We don't go to a vet when human doctors are too busy, not even a mental patient has ever made that mistake, or I never heard any of them do?
    Take ANY animal, and show it to an infant that can barely sit yet and watch how they know what an animal is, and who humans are?



    Nope said: It's caused by the expanding of space. As space expands every where. The space between the waves of the electromagnetic waves increases and the waves become red shifted as they have a longer wave length. Also objects get farther from each other.

    That explanation is an insult to my two whole years of public education, let alone what I have learned on my own in the past 60 years.

    An unknown quantum speck that popped out of nothing, got hot and exploded,  sorry, it "suddenly Inflated" by a vacuum.

    Now lets see how that works in reality:  take a vacuum chamber, suck out all the air, and try to expand the chamber at or near the speed of light, .. from the inside by adding more "suck"




    Nope said: The space between the waves of the electromagnetic waves increases and the waves become red shifted as they have a longer wave length. Also objects get farther from each other.

    again, show me an experiment IN a vacuum (I will accept one done outside the ISS, a perfect medium for just such experiment) where they video electromagnetic waves turn red when going away from the ISS, and turn white coming towards?

    Remember the god Einstein said that "light travels at a constant", .. so it's not like it will change color coming off something going away, or coming towards us. Both instances they are traveling at the same speed, .. hello! (don't try to argue about that because I will bring up special relativistic effects, and the "relative to" weapon.) so just stick to what I said: "light is a constant for all observers."

    Besides, I can show you a bunch of other paradoxes that travel with the idea of an expanding universe, I mean expanding vacuum is one ridiculous claim, that's before we consider all the problems you would have before we bring in "special relativistic effects" to the picture .. which by some divine event is NEVER mentioned in the Big-Bang story!? I mean just imagine all the special relativistic effects going on where the entire universe full of galaxies, and trillions of stars, planets are moving away from each other!
    Erfisflat
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    "So why did the Negros get offended when they were displayed in zoos both in Europe and here in New York, specifically Ota Benga?
    Or why do evolving apes walk right through doors on buildings that specifically says: "No animals of any kind allowed!" ??

    I shown you from the Creator Himself how we were created, and why? Same design, same source (dust), but obviously very different from animals.
    God created man first, then animals to accompany him.

    We refer to all animals in the same context, and  humans is automatically understood as distinct from animals. We don't go to a vet when human doctors are too busy, not even a mental patient has ever made that mistake, or I never heard any of them do?
    Take ANY animal, and show it to an infant that can barely sit yet and watch how they know what an animal is, and who humans are?"
    First humans have a intelligence many animals do not. Second the Negros where not being treated as equals. Third animals are often used to refer to non humans even through humans are animals as they fit the scientific definition.

    "That explanation is an insult to my two whole years of public education, let alone what I have learned on my own in the past 60 years.

    An unknown quantum speck that popped out of nothing, got hot and exploded,  sorry, it "suddenly Inflated" by a vacuum.

    Now lets see how that works in reality:  take a vacuum chamber, suck out all the air, and try to expand the chamber at or near the speed of light, .. from the inside by adding more "suck""
    How is it an insult? I do't understand the second part.

    "again, show me an experiment IN a vacuum (I will accept one done outside the ISS, a perfect medium for just such experiment) where they video electromagnetic waves turn red when going away from the ISS, and turn white coming towards?

    Remember the god Einstein said that "light travels at a constant", .. so it's not like it will change color coming off something going away, or coming towards us. Both instances they are traveling at the same speed, .. hello! (don't try to argue about that because I will bring up special relativistic effects, and the "relative to" weapon.) so just stick to what I said: "light is a constant for all observers."

    Besides, I can show you a bunch of other paradoxes that travel with the idea of an expanding universe, I mean expanding vacuum is one ridiculous claim, that's before we consider all the problems you would have before we bring in "special relativistic effects" to the picture .. which by some divine event is NEVER mentioned in the Big-Bang story!? I mean just imagine all the special relativistic effects going on where the entire universe full of galaxies, and trillions of stars, planets are moving away from each other!"
    Light red shifts slowly. In order to see the effect the light source would have to be far. What does them traveling at the same speed have to do with this? Don't try to argue about what? What paradoxes? What special relativistic effect?
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Nope said:



    Hold on, I will keep editing my post till I get 100% on "considerate"
    get back to you then.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Nope said:



    Hold on, I will keep editing my post till I get 100% on "considerate"
    get back to you then.
    Can you understand this guy?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Nope ;
    @Evidence said: Now lets see how that works in reality:  take a vacuum chamber, suck out all the air, and try to expand the chamber at or near the speed of light, .. from the inside by adding more "suck""

    Nope: How is it an insult? I do't understand the second part.

    Big Bang model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state. Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. Despite being extremely dense at this time—far denser than is usually required to form a black hole—the universe did not re-collapse into a black hole (Thank God)
    (cont.)
    In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially during which time density fluctuations that occurred because of the uncertainty principle were amplified into the seeds that would later form the large-scale structure of the universe. After inflation stopped, reheating occurred until the universe obtained the temperatures required for the production of a quark–gluon plasma as well as all other elementary particles
    Cosmic inflation is the exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the Universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate

    So we have a quantum something that was in a very high density, and very high temperature state some finite time in the past, which .. umm, .. approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially during which time density fluctuations that occurred because of the uncertainty principle were amplified into the seeds that would later form the large-scale structure of the universe.

    My question, what was the singularity in?

    Then, approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused the cosmic inflation.
    So we already have expansion, and then the heat causes a phase transition, on what, the expanding vacuum, .. which in turn caused the cosmic inflation?

    Q.  We see we have heat (but from what?) which can  cause phase transition, .. but a phase transition of what to what?
    (If we have water, heat will turn it to steam, in which we get inflation, not a vacuum. But what did the extreme heat cause the phase transition on? This is before any-"thing" was born! Did heat cause heat to turn into a vacuum and inflate the universe?
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Evidence said:
    Nope said:



    Hold on, I will keep editing my post till I get 100% on "considerate"
    get back to you then.
    Can you understand this guy?


    The question is, can he reply to this Big-Bang story?
    My last post was rated by Debra something like 32% Considerate, .. I'm trying to improve my "considerate rating" so I rewrote my reply.

    Hey @Erfisflat have you ever actually read the Big Bang story on Wikipedia, the claims are truly amazing. They can rub two sticks together, and because it gets hot, add it to something like the "folding of space fabric which makes time travel possible".

    In other words, they have taken actual scientific observations like the Doppler effect here on earth and applied it to stars going away from us to prove the redshift theory, LOL

    So I'm waiting for our friends response to see how he will try to justify these outrageous comparisons and claims?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Evidence said:
    Nope said:



    Hold on, I will keep editing my post till I get 100% on "considerate"
    get back to you then.
    Can you understand this guy?


    The question is, can he reply to this Big-Bang story?
    My last post was rated by Debra something like 32% Considerate, .. I'm trying to improve my "considerate rating" so I rewrote my reply.

    Hey @Erfisflat have you ever actually read the Big Bang story on Wikipedia, the claims are truly amazing. They can rub two sticks together, and because it gets hot, add it to something like the "folding of space fabric which makes time travel possible".

    In other words, they have taken actual scientific observations like the Doppler effect here on earth and applied it to stars going away from us to prove the redshift theory, LOL

    So I'm waiting for our friends response to see how he will try to justify these outrageous comparisons and claims?
    Yes, it's amazing what people will believe with absolutely zero practical evidence. I can't speak too loud, because I was there too, just accepting it as truth, simply because I assumed those scifientists had some access to an observation that I didn't?
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Evidence said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Evidence said:
    Nope said:



    Hold on, I will keep editing my post till I get 100% on "considerate"
    get back to you then.
    Can you understand this guy?


    The question is, can he reply to this Big-Bang story?
    My last post was rated by Debra something like 32% Considerate, .. I'm trying to improve my "considerate rating" so I rewrote my reply.

    Hey @Erfisflat have you ever actually read the Big Bang story on Wikipedia, the claims are truly amazing. They can rub two sticks together, and because it gets hot, add it to something like the "folding of space fabric which makes time travel possible".

    In other words, they have taken actual scientific observations like the Doppler effect here on earth and applied it to stars going away from us to prove the redshift theory, LOL

    So I'm waiting for our friends response to see how he will try to justify these outrageous comparisons and claims?
    Yes, it's amazing what people will believe with absolutely zero practical evidence. I can't speak too loud, because I was there too, just accepting it as truth, simply because I assumed those scifientists had some access to an observation that I didn't?


    @Erfisflat Yes, I agree, and if it wasn't for you sticking to your guns on Flat Earth, I would still be trying to explain Gods creation from a cosmological, Globetard view.

    We don't seem to have many here who would be willing to back up this Big-Bang story, they're just pointing out minute problems with our understanding of flat earth, especially pointing to their math on the globe, since their whole science fiction universe, starting from it's initial birth, to sizes, distances, time, expansion, orbits, everything been worked out by mathematics, no different than any good science fiction writer would, like on Star Wars:

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_planets

    So when we question something that is not within Star Wars universe rules (in this case NASA universe) of course we are labeled as "ignorant about science, even hating science" instead of telling the truth, which is that; we simply refuse to accept a science fiction universe as our home.

    God bless you.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "I would still be trying to explain Gods creation from a cosmological, Globetard view."

    That must have been very difficult to do this. I must admit that before the flat earth truth, I doubted God. Now, it's obvious. That may be why people are so vehemently against it.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    Reams and reams of argument, still getting nowhere nearer the truth.

    God. Big Bang. Flat Earth. All theories, no proof.


    Actually. I doubt that anyone really believes that the Earth is flat.

    Personally I accept that the Spherical Earth theory was unequivocally proved, 500 years ago by a couple of sailors.


    So is the Flat Earth a valid theory?

    No.

    Just deliberate antagonism and fun debating.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch