20 The Big Bang never happened!

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html

http://www.lulu.com/content/7436620

http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Doesnt-Exist-ebook/dp/B002IPHCME

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/04Exist/06Z2Infinity.html

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/


Like all traditional religions, including Taoism and Buddhism which typically deny it, the contemporary religion known as Mathematical Physics claims that the Universe was created from absolutely nothing. The Nobel toting mathematicians of the corridors of think tanks and universities part company with the robed priests, pastors, and monks of churches and monasteries only in that they do not propose a mythical figure known as God. They theorize, instead, that matter self-assembled from the void. They all agree, however, in that they do not intend to answer the primordial question a rational individual asks: What triggered God or the Big Bang? They argue that this is an unfair and unscientific question.

Here we expose the fallacies of creatio ex nihilo and put these theories in their proper perspective: they are irrational and, thus, unscientific. We simply cannot conceive of length, width and height suddenly appearing in zero time. A more obvious fatal conceptual problem with Big Bang is defining what entity could possibly contour this expanding balloon. And just in case, Stephen Crothers summarizes for us why Big Bang also fails at the mathematical level.

The Big Bang theory merely shows once again that Math is not the language of Physics. It exposes how otherwise rational human beings arrive at the most ridiculous conclusions regarding the nature of our Universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
http://www.telegram.com/article/20090910/COLUMN21/909100658
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/bigbang/
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Big Bang
• Tyson KOs Einstein
• Stephen Crothers
• Bill Gaede
• God exists
• God doesn't exist
• Black Hole
• Hawking
• creation
• ex nihilo
• self-assembled
• scientific method
• Einstein's Idiots
• you stupid relativist
• pope
• dalai lama
• Richard Dawkins
• atheism
• atheist

[RozNinGon]

Interesting.

In your theory, is there a first frame in the universal movie? How do you think matter has changed and what do you think matter looked like if we went back on your time number line very close to 0?

[bgaede]

"is there a first frame in the universal movie?"

Irrational to even suggest such a proposal, right?

.

"How do you think matter has changed"

Changed? Like from location to location, perhaps???

.

"your time number line very close to 0?"

Time line? 0? WTF??? I have no idea what you are talking about, Gon. In Science, there is no such word as 'time'. We have no use for it. That word belongs exclusively to the religion of Mathematics. What is 0, anyways?

[RozNinGon]

I should have put "1" instead meaning that first change but you seem to think the concept of a first change is not rational in the first place. Why is this?

[bgaede]

1. "Is the alternative not an infinite amount"

.

The word 'infinite' is an irrational term. It should be wiped out from even ordinary dictionaries.

youstupidrelativist com/01Math/06Numb/05Infinity.h­tml

youstupidrelativist com/03GR/01Emp/08Z4Unbounded.h­tml

[bgaede]

2. "the earth may have once been a star. But what was it before that?"

Well, our beloved Sun appears to be a ball of gas, meaning that there are gazillions of H atoms vying to get to the center of our star. And before that, they were perhaps loose atoms which were eventually drawn gravitationally toward the others. And before that, the H atom was likely a part of another planet or of another ball of gas. Location, location, location!

[bgaede]

3. "the concept of a first change is not rational in the first place"

.

A first frame requires everything, even God, to be frozen still! What would compel the first atom to move spontaneously? Wouldn't this require extrinsic stimulus? If God set the first particle in motion, the particle was already moving wrt God before God moved a finger. So initial motion, like Creation, is irrational. It cannot even be conceived. Matter was not created. Matter never started to move.

[bgaede]

4. Indeed, from Mother Nature's perspective, there is no motion in the entire Universe. Every object, every atom merely has location. The Moon looks at herself and says, "I only have location." And when she's at another location, she repeats the mantra, "I only have location."

There are no objects that can have two locations... except in the religion of Quantum.

[RozNinGon]

"Irrational to even suggest such a proposal, right?"

Is the alternative not an infinite amount of changes into the past? For example, in one of your videos you offer the theory that the earth was once a star. But what was the matter like before that, and before that?

"Changed? Like from location to location, perhaps???"

Yeah sure. In one of your videos you posited that the earth may have once been a star. But what was it before that?

[CACBCCCU]

Everything in the visible universe, including BHs, could be inside a single BH, it wouldn't mean a massive thing if such is true or not, but it's an infinite cycle. Maybe dark energy results from Hawking loss at the boundary to another universe, still no reason for adding a new dimension for space anywhere in that, it could all happen in 3D space yet it's well beyond GR's scope, which has gravity actions without gravity quanta, confining its quantization to a political/funding exercise.

[bgaede]

"relying on colliders for that while general relativity/big-bang politics still reigns is about as scientific as lighting people on fire to study heat"

.

As long as the guy at the stake is a mathematician, on with the experiment! There's enough of them to cover all the bases regarding heat.

.

"the cable was loose..."

.

...in someone's brain...