Religious Pointlessness
Comments
-
Of the 15 observable light emitting from 15 galaxies, 9 are on the Red shift and 6 are in the Blue shift. The BBT's conclude that the universe is expanding because most of the Galaxies are in the red shift. What a load of carp.
Many stars and star clusters were aged and then when those ages didn't conform to the BBT, they changed the ages of what was held as fact!!
In the US, Universities who preach the BBT get more funding for the respective faculties who are exploring the BBT. Universities that don't, don't. That means that in certain circles, it is cosmological herecy to believe in anything but the BBT.
I will dig out some stuff on the subject and we can dissect the bollox that has been amalgamated to create the BBT.
On a philosophical level, it is near on impossible for the human being to think of anything in infinite terms. We begin, we live and then we die but we are organic. We feel compelled to create a theory that has a beginning, a middle and an end. We need to answer the question of how we got here as if it will make any sodding difference to the current trajectory of mankind. That is philosophically flawed. We think ourselves so clever, we can come to some grand theory that answers everything yet we still don't know what's at the bottom of the sea.
Water and sand/earth is my wild guess, what else are you expecting? Unless you feel compelled to create a theory... :P0 -
Atlantis?Of the 15 observable light emitting from 15 galaxies, 9 are on the Red shift and 6 are in the Blue shift. The BBT's conclude that the universe is expanding because most of the Galaxies are in the red shift. What a load of carp.
Many stars and star clusters were aged and then when those ages didn't conform to the BBT, they changed the ages of what was held as fact!!
In the US, Universities who preach the BBT get more funding for the respective faculties who are exploring the BBT. Universities that don't, don't. That means that in certain circles, it is cosmological herecy to believe in anything but the BBT.
I will dig out some stuff on the subject and we can dissect the bollox that has been amalgamated to create the BBT.
On a philosophical level, it is near on impossible for the human being to think of anything in infinite terms. We begin, we live and then we die but we are organic. We feel compelled to create a theory that has a beginning, a middle and an end. We need to answer the question of how we got here as if it will make any sodding difference to the current trajectory of mankind. That is philosophically flawed. We think ourselves so clever, we can come to some grand theory that answers everything yet we still don't know what's at the bottom of the sea.
Water and sand/earth is my wild guess, what else are you expecting? Unless you feel compelled to create a theory... :PThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
There are areas under the sea that are yet un-explored yet we think we know how the universe 'started' *!!
There are natural phenomena that we don't understand. There are weather patterns that we don't fully understand. You see where I am coming from and if you don't, then you are not open to alternative theories.
*Of course 'started' is a presumption and only a theory.
The BBT is just mankind's ego running away with itself.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
There are areas under the sea that are yet un-explored yet we think we know how the universe 'started' *!!
There are natural phenomena that we don't understand. There are weather patterns that we don't fully understand. You see where I am coming from and if you don't, then you are not open to alternative theories.
*Of course 'started' is a presumption and only a theory.
The BBT is just mankind's ego running away with itself.
I agree. This Global Warming theory is costing us a packet.0 -
Red shift v blue shift? - there are less than 100 galaxies observed to be blue shifted in the known Universe and the majority of those are galaxies which are bound to our own so of course many would be moving towards us at any one time.Of the 15 observable light emitting from 15 galaxies, 9 are on the Red shift and 6 are in the Blue shift. The BBT's conclude that the universe is expanding because most of the Galaxies are in the red shift. What a load of carp.
Many stars and star clusters were aged and then when those ages didn't conform to the BBT, they changed the ages of what was held as fact!!
In the US, Universities who preach the BBT get more funding for the respective faculties who are exploring the BBT. Universities that don't, don't. That means that in certain circles, it is cosmological herecy to believe in anything but the BBT.
I will dig out some stuff on the subject and we can dissect the bollox that has been amalgamated to create the BBT.
On a philosophical level, it is near on impossible for the human being to think of anything in infinite terms. We begin, we live and then we die but we are organic. We feel compelled to create a theory that has a beginning, a middle and an end. We need to answer the question of how we got here as if it will make any sodding difference to the current trajectory of mankind. That is philosophically flawed. We think ourselves so clever, we can come to some grand theory that answers everything yet we still don't know what's at the bottom of the sea.
Also why trot out the old scientific conspiracy nonsense about heresy etc. Science is by definition the opposite of that - Nobel prizes await those who successfully debunk current common thinking - just look at quantum theory - those boys were up against Einstein, and they won.
As for big bang theory - it really does not matter if it is right or not - what matters today is that the theory is useful and has been successful. It provides a useful explanation of the formation of the Universe we see today and it makes successful, testable predictions. There are weaknesses in the theory (the flatness problem for example) but we cannot shake the fact that the theory works. I suspect much of it will be changed in the coming decades with discoveries related to dark matter/energy but that does not change the power of current big bang theory.
We don't trash Newtons theories of motion and gravitation because they were wrong (they are wrong as Einstein proved) but his theories and laws are still useful. We will have a better model for the origin of the universe one day, but it will do nothing to change the usefulness of big bang theory.
As for exploring the stars and the bigger picture rather than our own seas - that's simple engineering - telescopes are easier to build than submarines.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
this thread has gone a bit 'cake stop' and needs getting back to the Bottom Bracket level!
Anyone got any Gillian Anderson pictures where she is dressed as a Nun or something?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
this thread has gone a bit 'cake stop' and needs getting back to the Bottom Bracket level!
Anyone got any Gillian Anderson pictures where she is dressed as a Nun or something?
No but I did find this:
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Of the...sea.
... Nobel prizes await those who successfully debunk current common thinking
What are you on about? The BBT has become common thinking and no one is allowed to debunk it.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Quote from: http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm
The Big Bang Theory
A Flawed Concept
Cosmology, by definition, claims to be the science of our universe, i.e. of everything that exists (in more recent times it has even invented the 'idea' of parallel universes in order to accommodate things that do not exist).
The ambition to find the ultimate reason for the existence of everything may be acceptable as a (pseudo-) religious quest but hardly as an objective and rational scientific endeavour. It is obvious that the assumption of a 'creation' is logically inconsistent with the scientific principle of cause and effect. Any valid scientific approach is therefore necessarily tied to the infinite dimensions of space and time as the forms of existence (the argument of cosmologists that time and space came only into existence at the 'time' of the big bang is a logical contradiction in itself and therefore scientifically nonsense).
What has led cosmologists to abandon logic and establish a pseudo-scientific system that tries to explain the creation and ultimate fate of everything ? At least with regard to modern times, the reason has to be seen in the discovery of the 'global' redshift of galaxies (Hubble Law), which, as interpreted through the Doppler effect, led to the conclusion that all galaxies are receding from each other. Now, in a homogeneous and infinite universe this is not possible as it would mean that the average mass density would permanently decrease, which would violate the continuity equation for mass conservation (in other words, mass conservation demands that the mass density has to increase elsewhere if it decreases in a given region of space; obviously this rules out an overall decrease of the mass density (see the page The Expansion of the Universe Debunked for more)). This on its own should already prove the physical impossibility of the expansion idea. However, in a kind of inversion of logical and physical principles, cosmologists decided then to tamper with the forms of existence and make space itself an object in some imaginary hyperspace. Yet even with this unphysical 'model', there remains the paradoxical consequence that not only the distances between galaxies but also the size of the latter should increase. Even atoms should become larger, altering therefore the fundamental frequencies for radiative transitions and resulting in an apparent blueshift for distant (young) galaxies (to evade this argument, cosmologists argue that physical systems held together by forces are exempt from the Hubble expansion [rather convenient], but this should then actually mean that the space in our solar system is unexpanded, and since light should adapt to the local scale of space, we should not see galaxies redshifted at all (which obviously contradicts observations)).
It is obvious that space (as well as time) can not be a subject of scientific investigation as we ourselves are objects within them.
The observed redshift of galaxies is therefore not a consequence of space expansion but only of (intergalactic) distance and one should look for a physical effect that delivers this redshift rather than try to involve 'known' physics by bending the rules of logic and common sense. A good candidate for the actual cause of the redshift is the intergalactic plasma electric field (see the page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies on my site plasmaphysics.org.uk; regarding the argument by Big-Bang cosmologists that other than recessional redshifts would not yield the observed time dilation of supernova lightcurves, see the page Galactic Redshifts and Supernova Lightcurves).
However, cosmologists can be accused of not only lacking a grasp of conceptual principles, but also of experimental expertise, as demonstrated by a crucial flaw in the WMAP data analysis.
The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because it assumes that the distance between two points in a given (curved) metric is the shortest possible distance, which however is only the case for the Euclidean metric (as the shortest distance between two points is by definition a straight line). Mathematicians frequently try for instance to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships. However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual (3-dimensional) space and one can in fact connect any two points on the surface of a physical object through a straight line by drilling through it.
Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space (or time) as these are the outer forms of existence and it makes as much sense to speak of a 'curved space' as of a 'blue space'. Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time.
The concept of gravity being due to a space curvature, as promoted by General Relativity, is therefore also inconsistent and should be replaced by appropriate physical theories describing the trajectories of particles and/or light near these objects (see the Relativity page for more).
One should also note here the inconsistency that cosmologists are making when assuming a resultant gravitational force in their models despite adhering to the cosmological principle of homogeneity and isotropy (which should logically imply a zero gravity force everywhere throughout the universe as equal and opposite forces cancel). This obviously completely invalidates their conclusion regarding the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
But as indicated above, the primary mistake is of course to assume an expanding universe in the first place.
You can follow up the expansion theory here:
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/expansion.htmseanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Posting links from junk science sites like PhysicsMyths demonstrates nothing. As far as I can tell it is the ramblings of one individual.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
This thread being in Bottom Bracket truly is summed up by the title.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The only points worth raising is yours, and these.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Posting links from junk science sites like PhysicsMyths demonstrates nothing. As far as I can tell it is the ramblings of one individual.
If the BBT has been sold to you and no other theory has any credibility, then just dismiss the very logical 'ramblings' of the above.
You can have a read of this but I think that you cba to read the above and I doubt you'll read the bit about different theories on this website:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm
BTW. I do not believe that the Big Bang theory it is some sort of conspiracy
. It has flaws and all I want is for the media to present it as theory instead of the "...will help scientists find out where we come from...how it all started...what happened just after the big bang...what happened before the big bang..." bollox. seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Of the 15 observable light emitting from 15 galaxies, 9 are on the Red shift and 6 are in the Blue shift. The BBT's conclude that the universe is expanding because most of the Galaxies are in the red shift. What a load of carp.
Many stars and star clusters were aged and then when those ages didn't conform to the BBT, they changed the ages of what was held as fact!!
In the US, Universities who preach the BBT get more funding for the respective faculties who are exploring the BBT. Universities that don't, don't. That means that in certain circles, it is cosmological herecy to believe in anything but the BBT.
I will dig out some stuff on the subject and we can dissect the bollox that has been amalgamated to create the BBT.
On a philosophical level, it is near on impossible for the human being to think of anything in infinite terms. We begin, we live and then we die but we are organic. We feel compelled to create a theory that has a beginning, a middle and an end. We need to answer the question of how we got here as if it will make any sodding difference to the current trajectory of mankind. That is philosophically flawed. We think ourselves so clever, we can come to some grand theory that answers everything yet we still don't know what's at the bottom of the sea.
Water and sand/earth is my wild guess, what else are you expecting? Unless you feel compelled to create a theory... :P
Assuming that Pinno's talking about the deep oceans away from the continental shelves, the bottom of the sea will consist of basaltic rock formed from upwelling magma at spreading axes such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, overlain with sediments, in particular biogenic sediments (carbonate ooze and siliceous ooze) and clays.
The sand that you and I find at the beach, mainly quartz (silicon dioxide) is mainly found in shallower seas, as it is eroded from continental crust and, except in cases when a turbidity flow takes it over the edge of the continental shelf and down onto the abyssal plain, tends not to get transported to the deepest oceans in large quantities. However, it will be found in trench systems where oceanic crust is being subducted beneath continental crust and the shelf sea is very narrow or non-existent, as is the case on the Pacific coast of North and South America.
Water is definitely found down there.
(I'm not trying to show off, it's just that I've got an Oceanography exam next Tuesday and apparently one of the best ways to revise is to explain what you know)0 -
That was top stuff Finchy except that I can't confirm any of it as correct. I was actually thinking about the living organisms down there not the Geological make up.
I guess you're finally back on the OU trail? Good.
Now, what do you think about the Big Bang Theory?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
That was top stuff Finchy except that I can't confirm any of it as correct. I was actually thinking about the living organisms down there not the Geological make up.
I guess you're finally back on the OU trail? Good.
Now, what do you think about the Big Bang Theory?
Been doing OU more or less non-stop since 2010. After my exam next week, I've got a few months off, then one final course and then freedom....
Some of the lifeforms in the deep ocean trenches really are fascinating.
BBT - I haven't really studied it in any great detail.0 -
That was top stuff Finchy except that I can't confirm any of it as correct. I was actually thinking about the living organisms down there not the Geological make up.
I guess you're finally back on the OU trail? Good.
Now, what do you think about the Big Bang Theory?
Been doing OU more or less non-stop since 2010. After my exam next week, I've got a few months off, then one final course and then freedom....
Some of the lifeforms in the deep ocean trenches really are fascinating.
BBT - I haven't really studied it in any great detail.
Neither have I.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Time to start studying then...
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
How do we put the theory into practice Blakey?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Same as BBT.How do we put the theory into practice Blakey?
It remains a theoretical.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I watched the film 'Senna' last night (for a BAFTA winner it was quite disappointing). However, Senna effectively claims that (at some point during his career) he felt a level of divine support that allowed him to win the F1 World Championship. Good to know that God follows F1 and takes sides. Probably also explains how Button got to be World Champion.
I think it would be a useful experiment to have different teams based on different faiths. Presumably, the one with the best God (or only God) would win as their prayers would be answered.0 -
I watched the film 'Senna' last night (for a BAFTA winner it was quite disappointing). However, Senna effectively claims that (at some point during his career) he felt a level of divine support that allowed him to win the F1 World Championship. Good to know that God follows F1 and takes sides. Probably also explains how Button got to be World Champion.
I think it would be a useful experiment to have different teams based on different faiths. Presumably, the one with the best God (or only God) would win as their prayers would be answered.
Great idea but perhaps strapping oneself to a competitors car and blowing it up would not be 'cricket'.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
