We are not alone..

[chaz wyman]

lets try again ,," you have nothing , now make me a universe"

Okay let's try again!
Your universe has been here forever. Where did it come from? How did it get here? As the only constant in the universe is change, how can you account for the assertion that it has always been here? That's ridiculous isn't it?

If it has been here forever then it has to have gone through every possible difference - there is no state it cannot have existed in. Surely it is perfectly reasonable for that state to have been a pinhead singularity?

[Godfree]

lets try again ,," you have nothing , now make me a universe"

Okay let's try again!
Your universe has been here forever. Where did it come from? How did it get here? As the only constant in the universe is change, how can you account for the assertion that it has always been here? That's ridiculous isn't it?

If the universe has been here forever , it didn't come from anywhere ,
How it is here now is it always was , it didn't have to "get here"
it doesn't matter how far back in time you imagine , you are still faced with the same question , how did the something come to be , if there was nothing ,?
in an infinite universe model , you are still trying to find a beginning,,???
so you don't imagine infinite to be possible,,??????



If it has been here forever then it has to have gone through every possible difference - there is no state it cannot have existed in. Surely it is perfectly reasonable for that state to have been a pinhead singularity?

Time and space have been here forever , matter goes through many changes,
a pinhead , made of something , like compressed matter , ie a black hole ,,??
but why does it have to involve the entire universe ,,???
thats an assumption based purely on ego ,
Hubble was looking at our galaxy when he came up with the bbt ,
he didn't have the amazing images we have now to look at ,
So in many ways, Hubble simply was not seeing the bigger picture ,,!!!

[chaz wyman]

lets try again ,," you have nothing , now make me a universe"

Okay let's try again!
Your universe has been here forever. Where did it come from? How did it get here? As the only constant in the universe is change, how can you account for the assertion that it has always been here? That's ridiculous isn't it?

If the universe has been here forever , it didn't come from anywhere ,
How it is here now is it always was , it didn't have to "get here"
it doesn't matter how far back in time you imagine , you are still faced with the same question , how did the something come to be , if there was nothing ,?
in an infinite universe model , you are still trying to find a beginning,,???
so you don't imagine infinite to be possible,,??????



If it has been here forever then it has to have gone through every possible difference - there is no state it cannot have existed in. Surely it is perfectly reasonable for that state to have been a pinhead singularity?

Time and space have been here forever , matter goes through many changes,

That is completely wrong. First your statement is beyond the possibility of empirical verification, which makes it totally speculative.
Second, if a changing universe has bee here an infinite length of time it has to have gone through every possible state (by definition), an infinite number of times. This includes a total singularity which is proven possible by science. so all you are doing is refuting your own statement.


a pinhead , made of something , like compressed matter , ie a black hole ,,??
but why does it have to involve the entire universe ,,???
Because the universe is infinite and has to have gone through every possible state an infinite number of times.
Science is not saying that it has involved a universe of infinite size, but that the maths points to the size of the KNOWN universe, and has the KNOWN universe is the only thing we can talk about, that leaves us with the BB explaining the current state of the known universe.
If there is anything beyond the KNOWN unviverse, then no one, not even you has the ability or knowledge to say anything about it, because it is beyond empirical verification.
thats an assumption based purely on ego ,
No - your assumption is based on ignorance, because you are talking about stuff for which no evidence is either available NOR possible. It is YOU that is making it up as you go along.
Hubble was looking at our galaxy when he came up with the bbt ,
he didn't have the amazing images we have now to look at ,
So in many ways, Hubble simply was not seeing the bigger picture ,,!!!

The more we see, the more the BB is verified.
You are talking bollocks.
Hoyle is dead and so is his theory.

[chaz wyman]

Time and space have been here forever , matter goes through many changes,

That is completely wrong. First your statement is beyond the possibility of empirical verification, which makes it totally speculative.
Second, if a changing universe has bee here an infinite length of time it has to have gone through every possible state (by definition), an infinite number of times. This includes a total singularity which is proven possible by science. so all you are doing is refuting your own statement.

a pinhead , made of something , like compressed matter , ie a black hole ,,??
but why does it have to involve the entire universe ,,???

Because the universe is infinite and has to have gone through every possible state an infinite number of times.
Science is not saying that it has involved a universe of infinite size, but that the maths points to the size of the KNOWN universe, and has the KNOWN universe is the only thing we can talk about, that leaves us with the BB explaining the current state of the known universe.
If there is anything beyond the KNOWN unviverse, then no one, not even you has the ability or knowledge to say anything about it, because it is beyond empirical verification.
thats an assumption based purely on ego ,
No - your assumption is based on ignorance, because you are talking about stuff for which no evidence is either available NOR possible. It is YOU that is making it up as you go along.

Hubble was looking at our galaxy when he came up with the bbt ,
he didn't have the amazing images we have now to look at ,
So in many ways, Hubble simply was not seeing the bigger picture ,,!!!

The more we see, the more the BB is verified.
You are talking bollocks.
Hoyle is dead and so is his theory.

[tillingborn]

" why can we see large old galaxies in our oldest images ",,???

We can’t. The oldest image we have is the cosmic background radiation. The r

We can , at 10 billion light years we have thousands of galaxies , some red and dead , do the research yourself ,red and dead , at 10 billion light years ,?

The research I've done suggests that the oldest galaxy so far discovered is older than 10 billion years, but less than the cosmic microwave background which is currently the oldest picture we have of the universe. Perhaps I'm gullible, but I believe that the findings of the Cosmic background explorer really do show the aftermath of a very large explosion. What I said above continued:

(The r)eason we have galaxies in our oldest images in the visible spectrum is that they are the only things big enough to see from such a distance. The most distant one is about 12.91billion light years away, giving it at least, 800million years to form; more if you take the expansion of space into account.

galaxies tend to be flat or ball shaped , ball shaped ones are thought to be the product of many galaxies coming together , they are much older and bigger , we can see those at 10 billion light years ,

At 10 billion light years there isn't the resolution to tell what shape galaxies are.

Recently on DW tv , German News Journal , the reporter made my claim ,
the observational data does not fit the bbt ,

If a journalist said it, it must be true.

So tillingborn ,,,the nothing ,
how do we make a universe from nothing ,,??? answer please ,

Slide1.JPG

CB1.jpg

Slide4.JPG

I can give you my answer now , you can't make a universe from nothing ,
therefore it didn't happen , what did happen was a continuation of the previous cycle , and on a galactic scale not a universal one ,

Well you say I can't have nothing, I say you can't have infinity. Nonetheless we have a universe; bit of a Kantian antinomy, eh?

Bangs happen on a galactic scale ,

Is there anything you can point to in the local 10 billion light years that supports this claim?

the universe is filled with hydrogen ,

Well intergalactic space, which frankly is the vast majority of the universe, is reckoned to contain one atom of hydrogen per cubic metre

where did all the hydrogen come from ,??
if Stars burn it what makes it ,,?????

See above.

black holes go bang , or pop or something , to release the hydrogen ,
the crushing power of a black hole returns matter to it's single component ,
a hydrogen molecule , and we have our cycle ,,,your turn ,,!!!

Do you have any evidence of black holes going bang, pop or wam-pop-a-loo-bop-a-lop-bam-boom? It's a bit ad hoc Godfree.
I've got some punctuation left over, would you like it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,???????????????????!!!!!! .

[thedoc]

There are some theories that energy can leak out of a Black Hole but I don't believe that has been observed yet. The fireworks associated to the Black Holes we can observe, come from the material being drawn in and interacting before it gets to the 'Event Horizon'. Once anything gets past the Event Horizon nothing comes back out, according to current theory, except for a small bit of leakage.

[Godfree]

The research I've done suggests that the oldest galaxy so far discovered is older than 10 billion years, but less than the cosmic microwave background

galaxies tend to be flat or ball shaped , ball shaped ones are thought to be the product of many galaxies coming together , they are much older and bigger , we can see those at 10 billion light years ,

At 10 billion light years there isn't the resolution to tell what shape galaxies are.

Recently on DW tv , German News Journal , the reporter made my claim ,
the observational data does not fit the bbt ,

If a journalist said it, it must be true.

I don't make this shit up , I am quoting websites and images I have seen ,
just google red and dead , should get you up to date ,
and if you want to know,,??? try googling the bb is busted ,
and you will find plenty of credible scientists with plenty of evidence ,
that the bb never happened ,
the religious amongst us can believe in infinity ,
they believe god is infinite , so even the ancients who started started the various religions , realized something has to be infinite ,
but what they were expressing is the realization that the universe is infinite,,!! and as for "there isn't the resolution" ,,your just being lazy ,
the images you saw may not have , but there are plenty that do ,
but you will probably do what we all do ,
seek conformation of your ideas , not contradiction ,,!!

[Godfree]

There are some theories that energy can leak out of a Black Hole but I don't believe that has been observed yet. The fireworks associated to the Black Holes we can observe, come from the material being drawn in and interacting before it gets to the 'Event Horizon'. Once anything gets past the Event Horizon nothing comes back out, according to current theory, except for a small bit of leakage.

If we look at it as a self contained cycle , then something is making all that Hydrogen to fuel the Stars , which in turn create the heavier elements ,
so we have Hydrogen being produced every time a black hole returns the matter to space , Stars and planets go in , but mainly Hydrogen will come up,
that is the basic assumption of the bb ,
that the bb created all that Hydrogen , I say little bang ,
Littlebang is my username on some Astronomy sites
if a bang involved the entire universe , the bang would take forever,
it would have to bang all the way out to infinity ,
of course taking an infinite amount of time to do it ,
and you would need an infinite amount of matter,,??
to fill the infinite space available,,,
So ,, bangs ,, happen on a Galactic scale ,,!!

[Godfree]

So if we have an infinite universe ,,??
then the bb would have to produce a lot more matter than it did , the bb isn't still spewing out matter , the expansion is supposed to still be happening and
according to some weird science now accelerating again ,
but the volume of matter has already been delivered ,
so the bb cannot have been all of an infinite universe ,
the known universe would be just a pinhead compared to infinity ,
so thats not enough matter to fill infinity ,
and as stated before , galaxies are spread evenly throughout ,
so the unknown universe should be just more of the same ,
in an infinite universe model ,
So for those of you who can grasp logic ,
Either the universe is not infinite ,
or the bbt is incorrect,
and that decision is an easy one for me ,
because there is no logic to ,,,FINITE ,,,!!!

[chaz wyman]

So if we have an infinite universe ,,??
then the bb would have to produce a lot more matter than it did , the bb isn't still spewing out matter , the expansion is supposed to still be happening and
according to some weird science now accelerating again ,
but the volume of matter has already been delivered ,
so the bb cannot have been all of an infinite universe ,
the known universe would be just a pinhead compared to infinity ,
so thats not enough matter to fill infinity ,
and as stated before , galaxies are spread evenly throughout ,
so the unknown universe should be just more of the same ,
in an infinite universe model ,
So for those of you who can grasp logic ,
Either the universe is not infinite ,
or the bbt is incorrect,
and that decision is an easy one for me ,
because there is no logic to ,,,FINITE ,,,!!!

Nope.

[tillingborn]

I don't make this shit up , I am quoting websites and images I have seen ,
just google red and dead , should get you up to date ,

Well what I found was references to galaxies which are no longer creating new stars, some of which are, as you say, 10 billion plus years old. So in that respect you were right and I was wrong. None of the articles I found contained any suggestion that this is evidence that the big bang theory is wrong, though.

and if you want to know,,??? try googling the bb is busted ,
and you will find plenty of credible scientists with plenty of evidence ,
that the bb never happened ,

Looked at this too; couldn't find any credible scientists.

the religious amongst us can believe in infinity ,
they believe god is infinite , so even the ancients who started started the various religions , realized something has to be infinite ,
but what they were expressing is the realization that the universe is infinite,,!!

It's difficult to know what ancient people were actually thinking, but the first montheistic belief, ie an infinitely powerful god, at least in the western tradition, is usually attributed to Akhenaten. (Sigmund Freud, I believe, argued that Moses was a priest in his court, which is where he got the idea from). I don't think any Egyptian claimed that the universe was infinite. Generally, ancients believed that 'creation' reached as far as the stars, but there is no telling how far they thought this was. Hesiod in the Theogeny argues that a bronze anvil dropped from 'heaven' would take 9 days to hit Earth, it would then fall another 9 days before it reached Tartarus. Until Galileo proved otherwise, it was assumed that the heavier the object, the faster it fell, hence an anvil would fall very fast. So there is some sense of scale, but the universe, heaven and hell, are still finite. As far as I am aware, the first people to argue that the universe was infinite were pre-Socratic philosophers, notably Anaximander and Democritus, both of whom could fairly be described as atheists.

and as for "there isn't the resolution" ,,your just being lazy ,
the images you saw may not have , but there are plenty that do ,

As I have discovered, clearly there is enough resolution for people who know what they are doing to extrapolate the information, I prefer to think I'm busy, but you may be right about me being lazy. Do me a favour and give me a link to the specific images you think are compelling.

but you will probably do what we all do ,
seek conformation of your ideas , not contradiction ,,!!

My idea is to acceptthe judgement of people who are best qualified to give an opinion. Given that the overwhelming majority of professional cosmologists, with access to the best images and subject to rigorous and sometimes brutal peer review, support the big bang, I reckon they could be on to something.

[Godfree]

I don't make this shit up , I am quoting websites and images I have seen ,
just google red and dead , should get you up to date ,

Well what I found was references to galaxies which are no longer creating new stars, some of which are, as you say, 10 billion plus years old. So in that respect you were right and I was wrong. None of the articles I found ,,!!

My idea is to acceptthe judgement of people who are best qualified to give an opinion. Given that the overwhelming majority of professional cosmologists, with access to the best images and subject to rigorous and sometimes brutal peer review, support the big bang, I reckon they could be on to something.[/quote]

I admire your honesty , I think it is the key to knowledge ,
if we aren't ruthlessly honest with ourselves ,,we can indulge the ,
emotions of a subject and ignore the rational logic that we see .
There is a lot of proof , things like the age of the Earth ,
they may be a wee bit out , but it's pretty close , certainly not 6000 yrs ,
and evolution , same , there may be a few details to adjust ,
but the basic picture is right , life evolves , continuously ,
the process is happening now , and space and planets also has it's cycle,
man has spent over 80 years on bbt maths , and they still have not proved it ,
I would like to see a bit more time spent on repeating cycle concepts,
you know ,, infinity , a never ending process that had no beginning ,
a repeating cycle , you trusted me to bother looking up red and dead ,
trust me enough to run repeating cycle over in your brain ,
and see what you come up with , you might surprise yourself ,
I have several references to sites and individuals on the ,
Big bang is Busted , thread here by me a year or so ago ,
Micheal Lewis ,,"Thebigbangneverhappened.com" , I think , might be .org ,,??

[chaz wyman]

I admire your honesty , I think it is the key to knowledge ,
if we aren't ruthlessly honest with ourselves ,,we can indulge the ,
emotions of a subject and ignore the rational logic that we see .
There is a lot of proof , things like the age of the Earth ,
they may be a wee bit out , but it's pretty close , certainly not 6000 yrs ,
and evolution , same , there may be a few details to adjust ,
but the basic picture is right , life evolves , continuously ,
the process is happening now , and space and planets also has it's cycle,
man has spent over 80 years on bbt maths , and they still have not proved it ,
I would like to see a bit more time spent on repeating cycle concepts,
you know ,, infinity , a never ending process that had no beginning ,
a repeating cycle , you trusted me to bother looking up red and dead ,
trust me enough to run repeating cycle over in your brain ,
and see what you come up with , you might surprise yourself ,
I have several references to sites and individuals on the ,
Big bang is Busted , thread here by me a year or so ago ,
Micheal Lewis ,,"Thebigbangneverhappened.com" , I think , might be .org ,,??

When was it that you realised that the Big Bang was nothing more than a Christian conspiracy?
When you re-run that part of your life you will realise that you too are indulgent of your emotions and have abandoned logic.

[Godfree]

When was it that you realised that the Big Bang was nothing more than a Christian conspiracy?
When you re-run that part of your life you will realise that you too are indulgent of your emotions and have abandoned logic.[/quote]

As Mr Tillingborn will find out , it is hard to get main stream science ,
that challenges the bb ,
could have something to do with where they get their funding ,,??/
now from memory what you call logic is not exactly the same as I see it ,
you challenged my most probable , so lets here your definition ,,??
what logic is this you speak of ,,???

[chaz wyman]

When was it that you realised that the Big Bang was nothing more than a Christian conspiracy?
When you re-run that part of your life you will realise that you too are indulgent of your emotions and have abandoned logic.

As Mr Tillingborn will find out , it is hard to get main stream science ,
that challenges the bb ,
could have something to do with where they get their funding ,,??/

Ahhhhh - a Conspiracy Theory. Obviously the churches of the world disguised as scientists and Members of the Royal Society have conspired to cook the books!|!

Oh wait a minute Alexander Friedmann was working for an ATHEIST government what he derived his equations based on Einstein, an ATHEIST.



now from memory what you call logic is not exactly the same as I see it ,
you challenged my most probable , so lets here your definition ,,??
what logic is this you speak of ,,???[/quote]

What you don't have and claim is absent in others.