Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:36 pm**

Godfree wrote:The red shift will be one of the first to be proven wrong .

Dear oh dear! The red shift is evident!

Our sun is red shifted ,
One of our most distant galaxies is blue???
Now in regards to the bb site ,
since everything is supposed to have started from a single point,
and expanded in all directions ,
then at the middle of this group of galaxies would be what I call the BB site .

That is not the consequence of uniform expansion. There was no single point from which the BB happened, simply because that point is now the whole universe. The BB was not IN SPACE, it was all there was. That is what all there is now. It was space itself that was expanding. NOT expanding INTO.

13.2 billion light years is how far we can see now ,
So massive black holes containing up 18 billion suns ,
are already formed just half a billion years after the bang.
To gather that much matter must have taken a massive amount of time .
Unless you are going to tell me the bang spat out ready made black holes that started devouring things .
Just like religion the BBT is a pretty little story to appease the minds of the masses.
And don't try and tell me it's got nothing to do with religion .
I found a website referring to the steady state idea ,
and it claimed in it's promo "Atheists can't handle the concept of no space time ."
So they are seeing this bbt as a win for the religious

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:52 pm**

Chaz , I get the feeling you support the BBT
there are several alternative explanations for the red shift ,
gravity pulls on the light and stretches it ,
the gases and composition of the atmosphere around a star effect the light that passes through it and this is the explanation as to why our sun is red shifted.
in an expansion model , the galaxies closest to the center would be grouped tightly together and the further out you went the further apart the galaxies would be , this is apparently not the case .
The Universe appears to have galaxies with similar distances between them uniformly throughout the Universe .
Many things about this bb don't ad up ,
like the war in Iraq , Chaz , for how long will you believe their spin.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:01 pm**

Godfree wrote:Chaz , I get the feeling you support the BBT
there are several alternative explanations for the red shift ,

You need to express yourself more clearly. you said the red shift will be disproven. I said it is evident.
Now you are saying we need a different explanation which implies you think I was right.

gravity pulls on the light and stretches it ,

That is not an explanation for the red shift.

the gases and composition of the atmosphere around a star effect the light that passes through it and this is the explanation as to why our sun is red shifted.
in an expansion model , the galaxies closest to the center would be grouped tightly together and the further out you went the further apart the galaxies would be , this is apparently not the case .
The Universe appears to have galaxies with similar distances between them uniformly throughout the Universe .
Many things about this bb don't ad up ,
like the war in Iraq , Chaz , for how long will you believe their spin.

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:13 pm**

No Chaz not a different explanation ,
one of many that may or may not be the cause of the red shift ,
there are other ways we can see this red shift ,
Hubbles assumption that it means the Universe is expanding ,
is just another could be maybe ,
There is no certainty here , it is still the bb theory .
think about it Chaz , why would a munk and a christian be so interested in science , surely they are there with an agenda , to find science that supports the bb.
Try goggling the steady state , you will find almost nothing on it ,
it's been buried and forgotten ,Every site I went to that made reference to the steady state ,then went on to promote the bbt as reality .
it's like the spin doctors have removed all counter intelligence .

Posted: **Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:52 pm**

Godfree wrote:No Chaz not a different explanation ,
one of many that may or may not be the cause of the red shift ,
there are other ways we can see this red shift ,
Hubbles assumption that it means the Universe is expanding ,
is just another could be maybe ,
There is no certainty here , it is still the bb theory .
think about it Chaz , why would a munk and a christian be so interested in science , surely they are there with an agenda , to find science that supports the bb.
Try goggling the steady state , you will find almost nothing on it ,
it's been buried and forgotten ,Every site I went to that made reference to the steady state ,then went on to promote the bbt as reality .
it's like the spin doctors have removed all counter intelligence .

We are no more going back to the steady state than we are of adopting the geocentric hypothesis.
The BBT does not imply God in any sense.

Posted: **Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:47 pm**

Chaz ,,,"the bbt does not imply god in any sense" again you astound me ,!!!
the "moment of creation" is not seen by you as religious propaganda .??
you don't think that christianity sees the bbt as the moment of creation
that their bible talks about .
that with science promoting a moment of creation you don't see this a just a wee bit convenient .???
main stream science and main stream religion agreeing with each other???
The whole beginning of time no space time before the bang bullshit is pure spin , this is so full of political agenda I'm amazed you can't see it .
Even if there was a fairly big bang 13.7 billion years ago ,
it wasn't the creation of the Universe , the Universe already existed .
the big bang theory is almost the christian moment of creation word for word .
in the beginning god created the hea ,,blah blah
or ,, in the beginning the bb created the hev ,,blah blah.
I seriously don't get how you can't see that >!!!!!

Posted: **Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:45 pm**

Godfree wrote:Chaz ,,,"the bbt does not imply god in any sense" again you astound me ,!!!
the "moment of creation" is not seen by you as religious propaganda .??
you don't think that christianity sees the bbt as the moment of creation
that their bible talks about .

The bible does not mention a BB. If there was a BB, there is nothing to say that there was not already a pre-existing universe.

that with science promoting a moment of creation you don't see this a just a wee bit convenient .???

I know Hoyle rejected it because he was an atheist. That is no reason to reject it.

main stream science and main stream religion agreeing with each other???
The whole beginning of time no space time before the bang bullshit is pure spin , this is so full of political agenda I'm amazed you can't see it .
Even if there was a fairly big bang 13.7 billion years ago ,
it wasn't the creation of the Universe , the Universe already existed .
the big bang theory is almost the christian moment of creation word for word .

OH for fuck's sake. Stop behaving like an hysterical girl.
Genesis is nothing like the BBT.

If you read it , it is absolutely clear the the writer did not even have an idea that the earth was a planet.
And he manages to create light before the firmament.
It's gibberish.

in the beginning god created the hea ,,blah blah
or ,, in the beginning the bb created the hev ,,blah blah.
I seriously don't get how you can't see that >!!!!!

Take a look at Genesis.
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:55 pm**

Chaz I get the feeling you are an agnostic or some sort of religious skeptic .
why would you soil this thread with such putrid crap.
I get the feeling Chaz that not being honest here .
.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:13 pm**

Godfree wrote:Chaz I get the feeling you are an agnostic or some sort of religious skeptic .
why would you soil this thread with such putrid crap.
I get the feeling Chaz that not being honest here .
.

That is probably because you are not very bright.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:25 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:
Godfree wrote:Chaz I get the feeling you are an agnostic or some sort of religious skeptic .
why would you soil this thread with such putrid crap.
I get the feeling Chaz that not being honest here .
.

That is probably because you are not very bright.

More Chaz logic is it .
Like a Capitalist assuming he has a lot of money because poor people are stupid.
You imagine that because you think you have the right knowledge ,
everyone else who disagrees must be dumb .
I see things that you don't Chaz ,
Lets draw a parallel with politics ,
Your a Labour supporter and as part of your blog you post the first page of the oppositions promo ,
Why do their work for them Chaz .
Left up to you Atheism would remain societies dirty little secret .
I'm trying to make it more mainstream , to offer bite sized bits they can digest .
To simplify it for the masses ,
To maintain your arrogant stance that such heady work is only for the experts in the field ,those with qualifications .
Maintains the status quo , we get nowhere , the punters turn off .
The operation was a success ,however the patient died ,!!

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:58 pm**

Godfree wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
Godfree wrote:Chaz I get the feeling you are an agnostic or some sort of religious skeptic .
why would you soil this thread with such putrid crap.
I get the feeling Chaz that not being honest here .
.

That is probably because you are not very bright.
More Chaz logic is it .

No, you ignorant wanker. THere is no logic here at all.
I have rationally concluded this from observation of the evidence. That makes it empirical.

Posted: **Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:15 pm**

How did you come up with the title, "The Big Bang is Busted"? I don't believe anybody is disputing the Big Bang.

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:14 pm**

Hey Godfree you have the wrong idea with respect to Doppler shift. The red and blue shift has absolutely nothing to do with the color of a star. For instance it's impossible for us on earth to see any shift in color of our star. You can only see this effect at great distances where relative velocities are great. OK, I could be wrong here, because our trek around our star is actually ovoid. Along this ovoid track there are times when we're opening and closing, so I would imagine there could be a process/instrument that might be sensitive enough to be able to detect a minute shift in color.

If they are correct then what they mean is, for instance that as seen from planet A over 'there,' our star would be seen as red shifted if and only if we were opening our relative distance. However on planet B over 'here,' our star would be seen as blue shifted if and only if we were closing our relative distance. Any single star can be seen as both red or blue shifted relative to any particular different observers position whereby the color is dependent upon whether it's opening or closing. It's incorrect to say that our star, the sun, is shifted to red as if the color is static. It's color is relative to opening and closing.

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:56 pm**

Speresofbalance,,,the red shift is just a theory , not proven .
there are several possible explanations .
The distance alone "could " be responsible for the effect .
The further away the more the light is stretched .
Gravity effects light .
Mans ego is the problem ,
First the universe revolved around the earth ,
And when science proved that wrong they eventually replaced it with,
"the universe was created by our little bang"
Can you see the same vein arrogance ,,We must be the most important thing in the Universe .
The Universe didn't exist until our god made !!!

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:32 am**

Godfree wrote:Speresofbalance,,,the red shift is just a theory , not proven .
there are several possible explanations .
The distance alone "could " be responsible for the effect .
The further away the more the light is stretched .
Gravity effects light .
Mans ego is the problem ,
First the universe revolved around the earth ,
And when science proved that wrong they eventually replaced it with,
"the universe was created by our little bang"
Can you see the same vein arrogance ,,We must be the most important thing in the Universe .
The Universe didn't exist until our god made !!!

I'm not saying what is or what isn't true about the expansion, I'm saying that you don't understand the dynamics of Doppler shift. Doppler shift is no theory! It is real! As a job I worked with electromagnetic energy (light) and sound. We used Doppler effect for determining whether a target is opening or closing. If you're going to talk about it then you should at least know what you're talking about, otherwise your point will look as wrong as your understanding of Doppler Shift. I'm Just trying to help you sound like you know what you're talking about. Whether or not they see it in relation to the universe is a DIFFERENT subject altogether.

"First the universe revolved around the earth," The church is responsible for this one.

PEACE, My Friend!

Philosophy Now Forum

The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted