The Big Bang is Busted

[SpheresOfBalance]

Is it just hero 'worship?'[/color]

Then:

I gave a single example showing confirmation of the relativity of time. There is absolutely NO scientific question that speed affects time. Time is NOT absolute. Einstein's theory has been EXACTLY proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Case in point!

[/quote]
speed effects time , as speed effects sound , so lets use that as the example,
the train coming at you is producing the note c ,
as it comes near the pitch goes up , as as it goes away the pitch goes down ,
but sitting in the train , the note has remained C
the train is reality , and the note C
the rise and fall in pitch are perceptions ,distortions ,
and the reality , the note C has remained C all along,
speed may effect time for some , but time has remained time ,,!!!
just as the note C has remained the note C,
we don't effect time , we perceive it in different ways ,
but time remains the same ,
time did not begin with any wee bang we may have had ,
just because we are not there to observe it , doesn't mean it does not exist ,
it means we don't know ,
what existed before the bang , we don't know ,
so any claims that there was no space or time ,
is pure speculation, assumption and guess work ,
I can guess to , my guess is as good as Einsteins ,
in my opinion it's better , time and space are infinite ,
and only a fool would assume otherwise ,,!!!!![/quote]
Sorry, but there is no such thing as time. There is only the need for humans to organize movements/change in a sequential fashion.

[John]

Is it just hero 'worship?'

Come up with a theory that actually explains phenomena and then you can challenge Einstein. Until then you have nothing and it just sounds like an unwillingness to accept something that seems counter-intuitive.

To your mind, so you 'worship' him huh? Answer my questions first then I'll address disproving your 'hero.' I submit that my questions/points speak for themselves. Maybe you fail to comprehend.

And don't get me wrong, I ABSOLUTELY LOVE Einstein, for a whole bunch of reasons.

But he was just a man!

It's not about Einstein. It's about failing to accept theories that provide the best explanations for phenomena that we have. Until you can falsify the existing theory or come up with a better one it's a moot point.

[John]

Sorry, but there is no such thing as time. There is only the need for humans to organize movements/change in a sequential fashion.

So all events happen simultaneously?

[bobevenson]

SpheresOffBalance, or S.O.B. for short, is not only challenging Einstein, but every physicist in the world. If chutzpah were money, she'd be a millionaire.

[Godfree]

Sorry, but there is no such thing as time. There is only the need for humans to organize movements/change in a sequential fashion.

So all events happen simultaneously?

When we look into a telescope , and see an object appear closer ,
do we imagine that this is real , that the object has indeed come closer ,
or are we humans able to hold the awareness of reality ,
and the experience we are having that seems unreal ,
as two separate concepts , and we realize we are being deceived ,
by the image that it is not reality but a mere distortion or altered image ,
that is my answer to the theory of relativity ,
reality doesn't come and go as our view of it does ,
when I take mind bending drugs reality isn't the colours and shapes I'm seeing,
I realize I'm in an altered state , and I remember what time it was when I started , and I can look at the time now ,
it may seem as tho I have been to Mars and back , but in reality it was just a few hours in my living room,
we know what time is , and can in theory play time back forever,
we don't need to have been there ,we know what was before the bang ,
the same amount of matter there was after the bang ,
the bang didn't create all that matter , if there even was a bang ,
the matter was re-arranged ,this is the process we observe today,
and we have no reason to assume it would not be the case before the bang,
never ending cycles , birth and re-births of the galaxies ,,!!!
I don't believe any single event happens on a universal scale ,
it's probably logistically impossible ,
given that the universe is infinite ,
if you want to imagine , just to make your story fit ,
that there was no universe , no matter , no time , no space ,, no brains,,!!!
go right ahead , is it reality ???,
not from where I'm sitting,,,!!!

[bobevenson]

The universe is infinite.

Please cite a single astrophysicist who says the universe is infinite.

[Godfree]

The universe is infinite.

Please cite a single astrophysicist who says the universe is infinite.

There is no shortage of evidence out there ,
if you want to look , if you want to know ,
I just visited a site called thebigbangneverhappened.org
they claim the evidence from the Hubble deep field images are ,
evidence for a non expanding universe ,
when comparing the two theories , the evidence fits a non expanding universe,
and there are many physicists who don't support the bbt ,
Bo ,you imagine the universe is finite???
how could that be ,what is on the outside of this universe ,
if you say nothing , whats stopping the nothing from leaking into the something,
just because you can imagine this finite state ,
doesn't mean it's a real possibility , I would say finite , is impossible ,
I doubt you could cite me an astrophysicist that could describe the nothing,
how far the nothing goes for whats stops the nothing from mixing ,
the idea of no space time , and then everything from nothing ,
is about as believable as god did it ,
whatever it was it was a cycle a continuation of the previous cycle matter being re-arranged over and over again ,
birth and re-birth of the galaxies ,,,...

[SpheresOfBalance]

Is it just hero 'worship?'

Then:

Come up with a theory that actually explains phenomena and then you can challenge Einstein. Until then you have nothing and it just sounds like an unwillingness to accept something that seems counter-intuitive.

Then:

To your mind, so you 'worship' him huh? Answer my questions first then I'll address disproving your 'hero.' I submit that my questions/points speak for themselves. Maybe you fail to comprehend.

And don't get me wrong, I ABSOLUTELY LOVE Einstein, for a whole bunch of reasons.

But he was just a man!

Then:

It's not about Einstein. It's about failing to accept theories that provide the best explanations for phenomena that we have. Until you can falsify the existing theory or come up with a better one it's a moot point.

Only in your mind, as that's your idea of how to proceed. You are fixated on the one model, and since you are not smart enough to challenge it with your solution or a reason for it possibly being incorrect, you become one of those along for the ride, filled with your passionate pride. I see a flaw, I don't have to see solution, I'm not here to be noticed. If I did have solution that disproved him, outright, I'd never tell anyone, because I would never want that kind of responsibility, are you fucking kidding me, hell no! And no I'm not alluding to knowing anything, I simply found a flaw that indicates the reason why it's still called Einstein's 'theory' of relativity. I'm sorry you're incapable of seeing it, that's your problem.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sorry, but there is no such thing as time. There is only the need for humans to organize movements/change in a sequential fashion.

So all events happen simultaneously?

Can you see the word "sequential" in my previous.
Here you go, to clarify, I see it like this:

"With Kant, neither space nor time are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject. Kant thought of time as a fundamental part of an abstract conceptual framework, together with space and number, within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows," that objects "move through," or that is a "container" for events. Spatial measurements are used to quantify the extent of and distances between objects, and temporal measurements are used to quantify the durations of and between events. (See Ontology)." --Wikipedia--

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOffBalance, or S.O.B. for short, is not only challenging Einstein, but every physicist in the world. If chutzpah were money, she'd be a millionaire.

I see, what your saying is, 'I better go with the flow or else.' To hell with that, I see a flaw, I report the flaw.

Does polly want a cracker?

[John]

Sorry, but there is no such thing as time. There is only the need for humans to organize movements/change in a sequential fashion.

So all events happen simultaneously?

Can you see the word "sequential" in my previous.

Sorry, I meant unobserved events.

[John]

SpheresOffBalance, or S.O.B. for short, is not only challenging Einstein, but every physicist in the world. If chutzpah were money, she'd be a millionaire.

I see, what your saying is, 'I better go with the flow or else.' To hell with that, I see a flaw, I report the flaw.

They have a lot of maths and observational evidence to back up their position though. Do you?

[Godfree]

SpheresOffBalance, or S.O.B. for short, is not only challenging Einstein, but every physicist in the world. If chutzpah were money, she'd be a millionaire.

I see, what your saying is, 'I better go with the flow or else.' To hell with that, I see a flaw, I report the flaw.

They have a lot of maths and observational evidence to back up their position though. Do you?

Maths =Michael Lewis ,, equation for photon decay ,
observational evidence=support for a non expanding universe ,
thebigbangneverhappened.org , hubble deep field , supports non expanding universe ,
pattern of galaxies supports non expanding universe ,
age of the massive galaxies 13 billion light years out ,non expansive universe ,
I would check your observational data , most of it supports ,
NON EXPANDING UNIVERSE

[John]

So against a vast body of scientific evidence you can offer a paper from one minor physicist?

Now, maybe Michael Lewis is correct but as I don't personally have the experimental apparatus, the telescopes or, quite honestly, the maths and physics knowledge to dispute the dominant position of astrophysicists the only sensible option is to accept what they say while remaining aware that the theories may change.

Let's be brutally honest about this: the level of understanding you need of maths and physics to have a valid opinion on interpreting the observed phenomena or producing a new theory in this field is extremely demanding and I very much doubt any of the dissenters here have anywhere near approaching the required expertise.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOffBalance, or S.O.B. for short, is not only challenging Einstein, but every physicist in the world. If chutzpah were money, she'd be a millionaire.

I see, what your saying is, 'I better go with the flow or else.' To hell with that, I see a flaw, I report the flaw.

They have a lot of maths and observational evidence to back up their position though. Do you?

I like you John, you have a pretty cool head, and I respect that, but have you actually read and understood my original post that bobevenson has issue with? It's one page back, page 9, Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:49 am

The flaw I see, reduces their "observational evidence" that you speak of, to a guessing game, with only a 'theory' to back it up. Before I buy into anything, it has to be a concrete observation, with all ambiguity negated, otherwise it could be swampland you're buying.