[Misc] The Big Bang (or not).

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

5% is still 5% more than the evidence for a creator tbf.

Precisely.

I can probably describe less than 5% of Southampton, but that doesn't mean I may as well believe it is Narnia.

 

[The Clamp]

Brilliant though. The people who question the Big Bang theory and climate change have so far come up with;

It’s the mainstream belief so it must be wrong and..uhm, no that’s it.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The Big Bang theory doesn't seem that convincing to me when experts only understand the 5% that we can see and feel, and that the other 95% is some mysterious dark matter and dark energy which has not been observed or any evidence off. Might as well stick with a creator theory.

I never saw much difference between the Big Bang theory and the Creator theory. I'm not talking about the day-by-day details in Genesis or other religions' explanations of the creation, just the general principle.

1. There was nothing, no time, no space, and God created the universe.
or
2. There was nothing, no time, no space, and a big bang happened and created the universe.

They aren't mutually exclusive options.

 

[Hugo Rune]

I never saw much difference between the Big Bang theory and the Creator theory. I'm not talking about the day-by-day details in Genesis or other religions' explanations of the creation, just the general principle.

1. There was nothing, no time, no space, and God created the universe.
or
2. There was nothing, no time, no space, and a big bang happened and created the universe.

They aren't mutually exclusive options.

Check out modern versions of the Big Bang theory (or watch Brian Cox’s latest brilliant series on the iplayer).

The ‘nothing’ before the Big Bang bit has evolved because science evolves. The scientific consensus is that there was ‘something’ before the Big Bang.

But, there is never any evolution in Religion.

Remember that.

 

[The Clamp]

I never saw much difference between the Big Bang theory and the Creator theory. I'm not talking about the day-by-day details in Genesis or other religions' explanations of the creation, just the general principle.

1. There was nothing, no time, no space, and God created the universe.
or
2. There was nothing, no time, no space, and a big bang happened and created the universe.

They aren't mutually exclusive options.

Not quite true. There was certainly no stable matter but plausible theory suggests energy was present in the vacuum and particles appeared and disappeared from that energy. This has been recreated in laboratory conditions and would give rise to stable matter such as protons and neutrons.

However, just for clarity, God doesn’t exist and so couldn’t have created matter before or after a Big Bang.

 

[dangull]

There is plenty of evidence for for dark matter and dark energy. That’s why theories about them exist, their existence has been inferred by overwhelming evidence, you don’t need to know exactly what something is to measure it’s effect.

We might find out soon enough with the James Webb telescope.

Meanwhile, do you ever ask yourself why observed trans-neptunian objects are almost all on the same elliptical orbit of the Sun? There’s something out there with a lot of mass that has distorted their orbits, and it’s (relatively) very close indeed. We can’t see it, but it’s there.

The opening post is saying that the new evidence of the James Webb telescope is making the Big Bang theory less likely than before for a number of reasons, one being that some of the earliest stars near the start of the universe are older than should be possible. If correct they shouldn't be there because they would be older than when the Big Bang happened.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Check out modern versions of the Big Bang theory (or watch Brian Cox’s latest brilliant series on the iplayer).

The ‘nothing’ before the Big Bang bit has evolved because science evolves. The scientific consensus is that there was ‘something’ before the Big Bang.

But, there is never any evolution in Religion.

Remember that.

You're on fire tonight

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

But, there is never any evolution in Religion.

Remember that.

Remember when they would burn heretics at the stake?

Then remember when a Catholic priest formulated the big bang theory?

So your statement would seem to be false.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The opening post is saying that the new evidence of the James Webb telescope is making the Big Bang theory less likely than before for a number of reasons, one being that some of the earliest stars near the start of the universe are older than should be possible. If correct they shouldn't be there because they would be older than when the Big Bang happened.

It wouldn't surprise me to find this is a scaling error. I often see data expressed as mean and standard deviation. The SD can cross over the Y axis implying that some values are less than zero. When the variable is, for example, the weight of something light, such as a particle of dust, this is clearly a precision error, or a false assumption of a Gaussian distribution, since dust cannot weigh less than zero grams. In my game (drug research) the literature is littered with such schoolboy data processing errors. That said, the people who work in my game are thick as mince compared with physicists (you could have guessed that from my posts)

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not quite true. There was certainly no stable matter but plausible theory suggests energy was present in the vacuum and particles appeared and disappeared from that energy. This has been recreated in laboratory conditions and would give rise to stable matter such as protons and neutrons.

However, just for clarity, God doesn’t exist and so couldn’t have created matter before or after a Big Bang.

(Prove it! And anyone who says you can't prove a negative is a wet ponce Fact.)

 

[dsr-burnley]

Not quite true. There was certainly no stable matter but plausible theory suggests energy was present in the vacuum and particles appeared and disappeared from that energy. This has been recreated in laboratory conditions and would give rise to stable matter such as protons and neutrons.

However, just for clarity, God doesn’t exist and so couldn’t have created matter before or after a Big Bang.

Is there scientific proof that God doesn't exist, or is that just your personal faith?

Have they now decided that the universe has been going on for ever, or did it have a [creation] start date? what started the clock, if it wasn't the big bang?

 

[dsr-burnley]

But, there is never any evolution in Religion.

Remember that.

That'll upset Henry VIII. He must have been surprised when he got to heaven and found he was still married to Catherine of Aragon.

 

[The Clamp]

Is there scientific proof that God doesn't exist, or is that just your personal faith?

Have they now decided that the universe has been going on for ever, or did it have a [creation] start date? what started the clock, if it wasn't the big bang?

With all due respect, I can’t have a serious discussion with someone about science or the universe if they first ask me if I have proof that god doesn’t exist.

Of course God doesn’t exist. Let’s start there.

 

[Swansman]

Brilliant though. The people who question the Big Bang theory and climate change have so far come up with;

It’s the mainstream belief so it must be wrong and..uhm, no that’s it.

And what did you come up with? Where's your evidence for Big Bang being the only possible answer to how the world was created? And where is your evidence that climate change is happening (and for the commonly mentioned reasons it is happening)?

With most respectable conspiracy theories, it's money and power that pushes the agenda. The money and power is with the opposite argument with this one, it makes a nonsense of all other conspiracy theories if true, I would have thought you would not be backing this one on those grounds alone.

I'm not backing it, I'm just not not backing it.

The idea of climate change is obviously very beneficial if you want to make massive changes to society. As we know, societal change always increases organisation (control/power).

With all due respect, I can’t have a serious discussion with someone about science or the universe if they first ask me if I have proof that god doesn’t exist.

Of course God doesn’t exist. Let’s start there.

Well, like you demand from others: prove it.

 

[darkwolf666]

With all due respect, I can’t have a serious discussion with someone about science or the universe if they first ask me if I have proof that god doesn’t exist.

Of course God doesn’t exist. Let’s start there.

You’ll be telling me next you don’t believe in ghosts!

 

[The Clamp]

And what did you come up with? Where's your evidence for Big Bang being the only possible answer to how the world was created? And where is your evidence that climate change is happening (and for the commonly mentioned reasons it is happening)?



I'm not backing it, I'm just not not backing it.

The idea of climate change is obviously very beneficial if you want to make massive changes to society. As we know, societal change always increases organisation (control/power).



Well, like you demand from others: prove it.

I’ll be brief because you’ll only dismiss my post.


I didn’t say the Big Bang theory was the only theory / answer. It’s the most plausible one we have to date.


Climate change and belief in climate change, all peer reviewed;

Climate Change
Evidence & Causes
The Royal Society
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/ro...nce-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

Science Exchange
NASA report
What Is the Evidence for Human-Caused Climate Change?

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/sustainability/evidence-climate-change


The Working Group III contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf


http://benruisch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Hennes-et-al.-Motivated-Recall.pdf

There really is huge amounts of evidence. You’ll be playing a very dangerous game thinking it’s about forced regime change/reorganising.


I don’t demand anyone prove to me God exists. That would be a biblical waste of everyone’s time.

 

[darkwolf666]

It’s funny how these posts bring out a small but vocal band of “free thinkers” whose only defence of anything they believe in* is to say “prove I’m wrong” rather than offering proof that they are right...



* some even argue in defence of something they have no belief or knowledge of, just to be part of the cool gang on the outside of the “mainstream” scientific opinion.

 

[Bold Seagull]

OK, I don't listen to the biased BBC nor go onto their 'scientific' climate stuff.

The important facts are the climate scare stories are gradually falling apart.

Failed climate predictions:

'Some' Climate Forecast Headline Predictions

1967 Salt Lake Tribune: Dire Famine Forecast by 1975, Already Too Late
1969 NYT: "Unless we are extremely lucky, everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years. The situation will get worse unless we change our behavior."
1970 Boston Globe: Scientist Predicts New Ice Age by 21st Century said James P. Lodge, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
1971 Washington Post: Disastrous New Ice Age Coming says S.I. Rasool at NASA.
1972 Brown University Letter to President Nixon: Warning on Global Cooling
1974 The Guardian: Space Satellites Show Ice Age Coming Fast
1974 Time Magazine: Another Ice Age "Telling signs everywhere. Since the 1940s mean global temperatures have dropped 2.7 degrees F."
1974 "Ozone Depletion a Great Peril to Life" University of Michigan Scientist
1976 NYT The Cooling: University of Wisconsin climatologist Stephen Schneider laments about the "deaf ear his warnings received."
1988 Agence France Press: Maldives will be Completely Under Water in 30 Years.
1989 Associated Press: UN Official Says Rising Seas to 'Obliterate Nations' by 2000.
1989 Salon: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019 said Jim Hansen the scientist who lectured Congress in 1988 about the greenhouse effect.
2000 The Independent: "Snowfalls are a thing of the past. Our children will not know what snow is," says senior climate researcher.
2004 The Guardian: The Pentagon Tells Bush Climate Change Will Destroy Us. "Britain will be Siberian in less than 20 years," the Pentagon told Bush.
2008 Associate Press: NASA Scientist says "We're Toast. In 5-10 years the Arctic will be Ice Free"
2008 Al Gore: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013.
2009 The Independent: Prince Charles says Just 96 Months to Save the World. "The price of capitalism is too high."
2009 The Independent: Gordon Brown says "We have fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe."
2013 The Guardian: The Arctic will be Ice Free in Two Years. "The release of a 50 gigaton of methane pulse" will destabilize the planet.
2013 The Guardian: US Navy Predicts Ice Free Arctic by 2016. "The US Navy's department of Oceanography uses complex modeling to makes its forecast more accurate than others.
2014 John Kerry: "We have 500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos" discussed Sec of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabious at a joint meeting.

Think you might be conflating journalism with science.

 

[The Clamp]

It’s funny how these posts bring out a small but vocal band of “free thinkers” whose only defence of anything they believe in* is to say “prove I’m wrong” rather than offering proof that they are right...



* some even argue in defence of something they have no belief or knowledge of, just to be part of the cool gang on the outside of the “mainstream” scientific opinion.

It all boils down to attention seeking, not getting positive attention from women/men. Not having healthy interaction with peers and friends in general.

They probably don’t excel or even come up to scratch in any area, be it work life or in their hobbies/interests. Having “special knowledge” gives them a sense of achievement and superiority that they lack in other areas of their life.

Of course, I can’t prove that.

 

[darkwolf666]

It all boils down to attention seeking, not getting positive attention from women/men. Not having healthy interaction with peers and friends in general.

They probably don’t excel or even come up to scratch in any area, be it work life or in their hobbies/interests. Having “special knowledge” gives them a sense of achievement and superiority they they lack in other areas of their life.

Of course, I can’t prove that.

I think that’s how all posts on every subject should now be signed off...