attn: Godfree

[Godfree]

You're making two conflicting claims here; on the one hand you say:

I'm the fastest to find and re-evaluate the knew knowledge ,
to come up with how the universe looks taking in to consideration all the new info ,

If this were true, then you would have been amongst the first to find and re-evaluate the new knowledge that convinced the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists that the universe was expanding.
However, I doubt that you have ever believed that the universe is expanding, because:

and if you know what your doing , the info will support your story ,

You believe all the bits that support your story and ignore anything that challenges it. It's nothing to do with being the fastest, it's called confirmation bias.

the recent observational data does not support the bbt ,
it supports a much older larger universe , that is not expanding ,,!!!

What recent observational data do you believe supports your view?

You are out of date , in this modern world unless your knowledge is current , your out of date ,
Xenu just visited the Neandertol museums in England and Germany ,
and came back to me and told me I was wrong about Neandertol ,
and these museums were his evidence ,
I gave him one google search , and he appears to be changing his mind ,
this world is full of old knowledge , the idea that the universe is expanding , is OLD ,
your out of date if you don't have a smart ph , hd tv etc
the bbt is very OLD

[Arising_uk]

I have mentioned on many occasions that I am on dial-up ,
so just find it a wee bit boring waiting for the universe to go bang ,
and the clip says a Universe From NOTHING ,
now we have my brain kicking in and saying bullshit ,not from nothing ,
an infinite universe cannot be gathered into a "nothing" point of singularity ,
so we keep , or I do , getting back to the universe is infinite so therefore ,
it isn't expanding , didn't go bang etc

I thought you said you lived in a city? If so then go to a library and watch it. I'm amazed anyone is on dial-up in a city anymore.

[Godfree]

I have mentioned on many occasions that I am on dial-up ,
so just find it a wee bit boring waiting for the universe to go bang ,
and the clip says a Universe From NOTHING ,
now we have my brain kicking in and saying bullshit ,not from nothing ,
an infinite universe cannot be gathered into a "nothing" point of singularity ,
so we keep , or I do , getting back to the universe is infinite so therefore ,
it isn't expanding , didn't go bang etc

I thought you said you lived in a city? If so then go to a library and watch it. I'm amazed anyone is on dial-up in a city anymore.

Go to a library and watch what ,,?? something I have seen many times already ,
you guys seem to think I havn't seen all this before ,
I am fully aware of what the theory is , I know most of the claims ,
getting me to look at it again and again doesn't change that it's bullshit,
so why not address my query , the "nothing" ,
this clip claimed the universe from nothing ,
which is why Godfree wrote his law ,
"if there was ever nothing in the universe then nothing is all there would ever be"

[tillingborn]

the bbt is very OLD

As has been noted earlier, the Big Bang theory is usually credited to the Belgian Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest, in 1927. But, at my time in life, it pleases me no end to point out that age is irrelevant:

...Godfree wrote his law ,
"if there was ever nothing in the universe then nothing is all there would ever be"

Or as the Romans used to say: ex nihilo nihil fit. The philosophical argument is usually attributed to Parmenides, but in fact the belief that nothing comes from nothing is the default setting of practically every human being that has ever lived and with good reason. Some physicists who claim that the universe came from nothing are just too busy working out the physics of the post Big Bang universe to bother speculating about conditions they have no way to examine. Others are prepared to think about conditions prior to the Big Bang, notably, and recently, Lawrence Krauss. Here's a quote from wikipedia:

"To write the book (A universe from nothing. 2012), Krauss expanded material from a popular lecture on the cosmological implications of a flat expanding universe he gave to the Richard Dawkins Foundation at the 2009 Atheist Alliance International conference."

In it he argues that 'nothing' is in fact a quantum vacuum. He has been criticised by people whining that a quantum vacuum isn't really nothing. They are missing the point, I think. Essentially, nothing, really is nothing, but 'Nothing is unstable' (title of chapter 10); it keeps breaking down into positive and negative, matter and anti-matter.
Here's a link to the Atheist Alliance International: http://www.atheistalliance.org/ I think you will like what they have to say, but it is silly to keep insisting that something for which there is no evidence is true. If anything it is more ridiculous than being a religious nutter, in their case their is simply a lack of evidence, whereas there is a wealth of evidence that flatly contradicts your insistence that the Big Bang theory is a Christian conspiracy.

[Arising_uk]

Go to a library and watch what ,,?? something I have seen many times already ,
you guys seem to think I havn't seen all this before ,
I am fully aware of what the theory is , I know most of the claims ,
getting me to look at it again and again doesn't change that it's bullshit,
so why not address my query , the "nothing" ,
this clip claimed the universe from nothing ,
which is why Godfree wrote his law ,
"if there was ever nothing in the universe then nothing is all there would ever be"

Which is exactly why "nothing" is not nothing anymore in Physics. Which you'd understand if you'd actually watch some lectures by Krauss or 'god' forbid actually read his book.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Nothin ... om+nothing

You say you are fully aware of such things but the questions you keep raising make it clear that you've not actually understood what they are saying. So you keep repeating the out-of-date idea of a big-crunch but this is not what they think anymore, think cold infinite eternity. One nice thing tho' in a hundred billion years our galaxy will be the only one we can see, all evidence of the big-bang will disappear and you'll be a happy bunny but wrong.

Top quote from Krauss's lecture "... physics may be an environmental science ..." imagine that!

[Godfree]

the bbt is very OLD

As has been noted earlier, the Big Bang theory is usually credited to the Belgian Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest, in 1927. But, at my time in life, it pleases me no end to point out that age is irrelevant:

...Godfree wrote his law ,
"if there was ever nothing in the universe then nothing is all there would ever be"

Or as the Romans used to say: ex nihilo nihil fit. The philosophical argument is usually attributed to Parmenides, but in fact the belief that nothing comes from nothing is the default setting of practically every human being that has ever lived and with good reason. Some physicists who claim that the universe came from nothing are just too busy working out the physics of the post Big Bang universe to bother speculating about conditions they have no way to examine. Others are prepared to think about conditions prior to the Big Bang, notably, and recently, Lawrence Krauss. Here's a quote from wikipedia:

"To write the book (A universe from nothing. 2012), Krauss expanded material from a popular lecture on the cosmological implications of a flat expanding universe he gave to the Richard Dawkins Foundation at the 2009 Atheist Alliance International conference."

In it he argues that 'nothing' is in fact a quantum vacuum. He has been criticised by people whining that a quantum vacuum isn't really nothing. They are missing the point, I think. Essentially, nothing, really is nothing, but 'Nothing is unstable' (title of chapter 10); it keeps breaking down into positive and negative, matter and anti-matter.
Here's a link to the Atheist Alliance International: http://www.atheistalliance.org/ I think you will like what they have to say, but it is silly to keep insisting that something for which there is no evidence is true. If anything it is more ridiculous than being a religious nutter, in their case their is simply a lack of evidence, whereas there is a wealth of evidence that flatly contradicts your insistence that the Big Bang theory is a Christian conspiracy.

There are many theories , and the jury seems to be still out as to which one is reality ,
so why is the american government so gung ho about the bbt ,
I will put it as best way I can ,
you say the redshift is evidence of the universe expanding ,
I say , your telling me the universe is finite ,
infinite , does not expand ,
I say finite is not possible ,
so why would I seriously consider ,"a flat expanding universe" ,,???

[Godfree]

Go to a library and watch what ,,?? something I have seen many times already ,
you guys seem to think I havn't seen all this before ,
I am fully aware of what the theory is , I know most of the claims ,
getting me to look at it again and again doesn't change that it's bullshit,
so why not address my query , the "nothing" ,
this clip claimed the universe from nothing ,
which is why Godfree wrote his law ,
"if there was ever nothing in the universe then nothing is all there would ever be"

Which is exactly why "nothing" is not nothing anymore in Physics. Which you'd understand if you'd actually watch some lectures by Krauss or 'god' forbid actually read his book.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Nothin ... om+nothing

You say you are fully aware of such things but the questions you keep raising make it clear that you've not actually understood what they are saying. So you keep repeating the out-of-date idea of a big-crunch but this is not what they think anymore, think cold infinite eternity. One nice thing tho' in a hundred billion years our galaxy will be the only one we can see, all evidence of the big-bang will disappear and you'll be a happy bunny but wrong.

Top quote from Krauss's lecture "... physics may be an environmental science ..." imagine that!

Most of the advances in Astronomical thinking have come about this century ,
the Hubble deep field etc ,
2010 , is about where you need to be to be up to date ,
if you are not taking in ti consideration what they have discovered recently ,
then you are out of date ,
the observational data of the last few years , has turned Astronomy on it;s head ,,!!!

[Godfree]

Arising ,,re Kraus ,
it took me all of about ten seconds to dismiss this nonsense ,
"the beginning of the begining" ,, the beginning of the bullshit , there was no beginning ,
"how it all ends" ,,more bullshit there is no end ,
clearly this dickhead knows nothing ,,!!!

[Arising_uk]

Arising ,,re Kraus ,
it took me all of about ten seconds to dismiss this nonsense ,
"the beginning of the begining" ,, the beginning of the bullshit , there was no beginning ,
"how it all ends" ,,more bullshit there is no end ,
clearly this dickhead knows nothing ,,!!!

You're an arse and you obviously didn't have the concentration to listen to the whole lecture. Story of your life I guess.

Let me know when you obtain undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics with first class honours and a Ph.D. in physics from MIT and then maybe I'd consider what you say about Cosmology and Astrophysics. Until then you're blowing it out of your outdated metaphysical arse based upon your own spurious metaphysical beliefs and your pet theory of science's 'collusion' with theist religion.

[tillingborn]

There are many theories , and the jury seems to be still out as to which one is reality ,

Yup, that does seem to be the case.

so why is the american government so gung ho about the bbt ,

Can you give an example of the American government being gung-ho about the Big Bang theory?

I will put it as best way I can ,
you say the redshift is evidence of the universe expanding ,

Well, it may be splitting hairs, but I'd say the universe expanding is the most plausible explanation for red shift.

I say , your telling me the universe is finite ,

And I say, show me where I said so. I don't know if the universe is finite or not.

infinite , does not expand ,

You are blundering into a paradox. If it does not expand, there is a limit to its size. Therefore, it isn't infinite.

I say finite is not possible ,

That's not the way to do science. The universe is not he way it is because you say so, it's just the way it is and the way to discover that is by looking.

so why would I seriously consider ,"a flat expanding universe" ,,???

If you are interested in how the universe works, it's worth your while giving serious consideration to any theory that has made it through peer review without being laughed at. The fact that Krauss' contemporaries haven't blown it out of the water suggests it remains plausible and worthy of respect.

[Godfree]

There are many theories , and the jury seems to be still out as to which one is reality ,

Yup, that does seem to be the case.

so why is the american government so gung ho about the bbt ,

Can you give an example of the American government being gung-ho about the Big Bang theory?
MOST OF THE SITES PROMOTING IT ARE AMERICAN

I will put it as best way I can ,
you say the redshift is evidence of the universe expanding ,

Well, it may be splitting hairs, but I'd say the universe expanding is the most plausible explanation for red shift.

I say , your telling me the universe is finite ,

And I say, show me where I said so. I don't know if the universe is finite or not.
YOUR GRASP UNDERSTANDING OF LOGIC IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT TO MINE

infinite , does not expand ,

You are blundering into a paradox. If it does not expand, there is a limit to its size. Therefore, it isn't infinite.
IT CAN'T EXPAND IF IT'S ALREADY THERE ,,,DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND INFINITE

I say finite is not possible ,

That's not the way to do science. The universe is not he way it is because you say so, it's just the way it is and the way to discover that is by looking.
GIVE ME ONE RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR FINITE ,,???

so why would I seriously consider ,"a flat expanding universe" ,,???

If you are interested in how the universe works, it's worth your while giving serious consideration to any theory that has made it through peer review without being laughed at. The fact that Krauss' contemporaries haven't blown it out of the water suggests it remains plausible and worthy of respect.

RESPECT ,,I'M SURE THE IDIOTS THAT DREAMED UP INTELLIGENT DESIGN THOUGHT THEY DESERVED RESPECT,
OLBERS PARADOX IS STILL REGARDED AS CREDIBLE ,
still held up as proof the universe is not infinite ,, peer reviewed ,,???
what gets credibility or respect from me is reality , talking truth and fact ,
logic and making sense , finite does not make sense ,
and will get ZERO respect from me no matter who says it ,
I happily take on Einstein , my Priminister ,, the world ,,respect , ???
thats something you have to earn ,, illogical nonsense does not get my respect ,,!!!

[tillingborn]

RESPECT ,,I'M SURE THE IDIOTS THAT DREAMED UP INTELLIGENT DESIGN THOUGHT THEY DESERVED RESPECT,

Bit of a difference, Godfree. Lawrence Krauss' hypothesis is compatible with the data produced by the most expensive and sophisticated machinery ever produced. The many scientists across the world who share this data come from a range of philosophical, political and religious backgrounds. As a body they therefore have no particular affiliation to any cause, other than to describe the world as accurately as they are able. Many will challenge Krauss, some will dismiss his idea, but most will agree that it is at least a viable hypothesis.
The idiots that dreamed up intelligent design by contrast, have one book and a reactionary political agenda, which, like you, I think should be resisted.
As you say, respect is earned.

[Godfree]

RESPECT ,,I'M SURE THE IDIOTS THAT DREAMED UP INTELLIGENT DESIGN THOUGHT THEY DESERVED RESPECT,

Bit of a difference, Godfree. Lawrence Krauss' hypothesis is compatible with the data produced by the most expensive and sophisticated machinery ever produced. The many scientists across the world who share this data come from a range of philosophical, political and religious backgrounds. As a body they therefore have no particular affiliation to any cause, other than to describe the world as accurately as they are able. Many will challenge Krauss, some will dismiss his idea, but most will agree that it is at least a viable hypothesis.
The idiots that dreamed up intelligent design by contrast, have one book and a reactionary political agenda, which, like you, I think should be resisted.
As you say, respect is earned.

You seem fairly confident that the main stream science is pretty sound ,
have a go at Olbers Paradox , the idea that the night sky would be all white ,
if the universe was infinite , cos all those stars would be shinning at us ,
someone forgot to tell them that at about 14 billion light years the light from distant stars ,
turns into the invisible spectrum ,
radio waves etc ,
Olbers Paradox is still the only claim I can find that the universe is finite ,
and it is a pathetic flawed logic ,, clearly wrong ,,!!!

[thedoc]

You seem fairly confident that the main stream science is pretty sound ,
have a go at Olbers Paradox , the idea that the night sky would be all white ,
if the universe was infinite , cos all those stars would be shinning at us ,
someone forgot to tell them that at about 14 billion light years the light from distant stars ,
turns into the invisible spectrum ,
radio waves etc ,
!

And IF that is true the light that is beyond the red part of the visible spectrum would be shifted into the visible, and would become visible light. Where did you pull the figure of 14 billion years? That just happens to be the current estimated age of the Universe in the BBT, or is this just a dodge to CYA and explain why we cannot see anything beyond 14 billion light years? There is no reference to light becoming invisible at 14 billion light years, in fact the red shift for objects at near that distance is only 5 to 8.6, nowhere near to becoming invisible.

[thedoc]

if you want an expanding universe , you need to be able to describe finite , the mechanism ,
you would have to describe "nothing " ,
you know , the universe is so big and then"nothing" ,

It is nothing to do with what I want. What on Earth is there to explain about "nothing"?

This is what most fail to understand that beyond the Universe there is nothing, but most see it as emptiness, but that is not the prevailing idea. Beyond the existing Universe there is not emptiness, "beyond the existing Universe" does not exist in any sense at all.