Is he a dyslexic as well as insomniac, laying awake at night wondering if there is a dog?.................
What... they didn’t have a video for you to rip off?
What !?
You mean,,,
Nothing
didn’t explode
and create
Everything ?
You don’t say.
( secular humanist morons )
More like the “big oscillation”.
If you really want to get astronomers and physicists upset just ask them what existed before the Big Bang. The answer was, is, and always will be “I don’t know.” The Universe is infinite.
BINGO!!
Instead of the big bang, Heim talks about the ‘big leap’. After all, the expansion of the metron with concurrent surface splits happens in quantum leaps in an initially absolutely empty universe, and that by means of the enlargement of the space diameter by one length quantum per time quantum.
In Einstein’s general theory of relativity, in contrast, the big bang, as proved by Stephen Hawking, is a necessity. Because in the field equations – as we have already seen – the geometry of space is only defined when a density of energy or matter is present. Thus, at the beginning of the world all matter of space would have had to exist compressed in a volume smaller than a pinhead. What matter geometrically means and how it was created, however, cannot be stated.
In Heim’s theory, however, there is only the dynamics of a pure geometry. Its state equations don’t contain any phenomenological quantities anymore. The thing we call matter appears in the universe only much later (approximately 10 to the power 100 years later), and then not in one single explosion, but, put figuratively, almost concurrently “as a kind of firework” all over the universe as soon as the number of area quanta is big enough and their areas small enough (as soon as it has about double the value of today’s area element), so that the broken symmetry of the Poincaré group and the creation of matter can come about. That happened only about 14 to 20 billion years ago.
Matter entered space in the form of quanta of the Planck masses, i.e. about 10-5 grams, and accumulated in quasars. The cosmologic background radiation is explained in the same way as in the modern Quasi Steady State Theory, and not as the residual radiation of a big bang.
Interestingly the supposed cosmic background radiation claims are very likely bogus. The signal to nose ratio, if you care to look into it, is so small that the that graphic they love to post everywhere cannot be replicated. It was derived by a lot of manipulation of the data to get a preconcieved result.
I always thought it was a dumb theory. This big mass explodes. What happened before that? Who made the mass? What existed around the giant mass? Around that? Did the universe we know displace something else?
Belief in a “Big Bang” and the necessary zillions of random-chance events occurring in exactly the right sequence at exactly the right time requires much more religious faith than belief in a God that created everything.
You mean Leonard and Sheldon aren’t real people?!?
Eternal inflation caused by “dark energy” spreading spacetime out while quantum particle fluctuations virtual particle pairs help regenerate the hydrogen gas between galaxies.
So basically steady state model was correct but the mechanism behind it was poorly understood.
“Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
I’m thinking of that Firesign Theatre album “Everything You Know is Wrong”.
Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state...
—
This is the very purpose of scientific experiment; to test theories; to test our very understanding of the universe. To keep checking; to keep looking for observations that appear to contradict those theories. And ideally, when a current theory “breaks” a better theory will explain the observation. It’s how we learn, if our minds are actually open to learning and not to hanging onto pet theories for the sole purpose of the next fat grant.
The Big Bang has nothing to do with sex.
The following anecdote is told of William James. [...] After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, James was accosted by a little old lady.
“Your theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it’s wrong. I’ve got a better theory,” said the little old lady.
“And what is that, madam?” inquired James politely.
“That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle.”
Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.
“If your theory is correct, madam,” he asked, “what does this turtle stand on?”
“You’re a very clever man, Mr. James, and that’s a very good question,” replied the little old lady, “but I have an answer to it. And it’s this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him.”
“But what does this second turtle stand on?” persisted James patiently.
To this, the little old lady crowed triumphantly,
“It’s no use, Mr. James—it’s turtles all the way down.”
— J. R. Ross, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, 1967
Ah, but publishers are happy as almost every text book will need to be rewritten and new editions published.
Everything is contained in the Petri dish except the creator
Big Bang deniers?