Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory
You might not be aware, but there are many things that proponents of the Big Bang theory, including many scientists and 99% of college science professors, do not want you to know about the Big Bang theory.
The first is that there is a good reason it is only called a “theory”. The proponents of this theory would have you believe that it is set in stone and factual; but this is far from the truth. In fact, the Big Bang theory has so many holes that there is not enough evidence to even confidently say that it could even possibly be valid.
So let’s see the top ten scientific flaws in the Big Bang theory and show you why it is just a theory. Some of these theories are extremely complex, so I will try to put it in layman terms as much as possible so almost anyone could understand.
10 The Magnetic Monopole Problem
This is a serious problem because it means there is something entirely wrong with the Big Bang Theory, because the total and absolute lack of even a single observed magnetic monopole particle is a direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of the Big Bang theory.
9 The Flatness Problem, also known as the Oldness Problem
If the universe started off slightly positively curved, it would be enormously positively curved today, and the same holds for negative curvature. However, the curvature of matter and energy in regards to density remains very small so the probability that a Big Bang could have occurred to create the current universe is so astronomically slim that it is entirely improbable.
8 We should be able to see the Big Bang or shortly after, since the farther you look the farther back in time you see; but we don’t
Essentially, the problem is that if the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, then the deeper we peer into the universe, the closer to the Big Bang that we should see. However, no matter how deep we peer into space, still we see no evidence of a Big Bang.
A quick google search showed me that even in 2012 we have been able to see 13.2 billion light years, which is see the equivalent of 13.2 billion years into the past. (We can probably see even farther now.)
However, since the Big Bang was supposed to occur only 13.7 billion years ago, then we should be looking at the early pre-formed universe. We shouldn’t see fully formed stars and planets. However, instead we see stars and planets just like in our own galaxy. This is a serious problem for the Big Bang theory because we’re looking at the “early universe” yet it doesn’t appear very early at all. Thus, the Big Bang could not have happened.
Additionally, although this is in fact yet another issue (one that has been addressed before), if the universe happened totally randomly then there should be all kinds of different forms that we should see as we look out into space. It wouldn’t be the same planets, stars, and galaxies in every direction. Instead it would be a vast array of different types of things. For example, in one direction we might see stars and galaxies but in another direction we might see exotic forms. However this is not the case, further disproving any Big Bang from ever happening.
7 Lack of universal galactic uniformity contradicts the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory
For a Big Bang to have occurred, galaxies would be perfectly evenly spread out. Thus, the lack of universal galactic uniformity contradicts the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory.
6 Dark Matter and Dark Energy
The “dark” in “dark matter” and “dark energy” doesn’t mean color. It means, “unknown”. In other words, the proponents of the Big Bang theory couldn’t figure out how it could possibly happen so they said, let’s make up some fictional matter and energy that “made it happen”.
It’s kind of like me saying I am the most powerful person in the universe. My power is everywhere and can do everything! You just can’t see my power but it’s there! And then someone with common sense saying, pfft whatever man, yeah right.
5 The theory of Inflation violates Einstein’s General Law of Relativity
The problem is, Inflation states that after the Big Bang, all the particles in the universe traveled faster than the speed of light. But Einstein’s General Law of Relativity proves that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Inflation can effectively be called a “magical” effect because it does not hold any basis in science. Theorists made up this magical effect which says, essentially, that in some magical way everything travelled exponentially faster than the speed of light to get where it is after the supposed “Big Bang” .
In order for inflation to even begin to be a solution, all matter after the big bang would have to travel 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times faster than the speed of light. That is 1,650 zeros, or 101,649. There isn’t a name for this number, but for some perspective, there are only 1089 total particles in the entire observable universe.
Obviously, Inflation is impossible, because it violates Einstein’s General Law of Relativity, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. You can’t use a false solution to answer problems.
It would be like you asking me, “I have three oranges and I add another orange. How many oranges do I have?”
And then me saying in response: “you now have 100 oranges”.
Then you ask, “how did you get 100 from 3 plus 1?”
And then I say, “well I wanted it to equal 100 oranges, so I made up this theory called Inflexion which means that due to a magical force that turns your fourth orange into 97 oranges, now you have 100 total oranges even though you only added one more.”
Well, you can’t argue that if I make up a magical term that turns one orange into 97 oranges then it doesn’t equal 100 oranges, because yes, 3 plus 97 equals 100. But Inflexion doesn’t exist, because I just made it up to get the result I wanted; so 3 oranges plus 1 orange always equals 4 oranges!
So then you tell me, “Ok ok smart guy, well now I have 5 oranges and I add 1 apple. How many oranges do I have?”
And then I reply: “100 oranges”.
And you say, “WTF?! How did you get 100 again?!”
So I say, “Well I still wanted 100 oranges so I made up another magical force called Inflapplexon that that turns 1 apple into 95 oranges when you add it to 5 existing oranges.”
Now you’re getting mad because I keep making up terms. But this is the same way that “Inflation” was created to solve the impossible problems.
The theorists wanted the end result to be the Big Bang, so they made up this magical term called “Inflation” and said, “ok this magical force caused the laws of physics to be broken so now the Big Bang works”.
Just like 5 oranges and 1 apple do not equal 100 oranges, General Relativity plus Inflation does not equal the Big Bang!
In summary, just like my magical forces “Inflexion” and “Inflapplexon”, Inflation also does not exist, because it defies the fundamental laws of physics.
4 The Big Bang theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
However, for the Big Bang to have happened and created the whole universe as we know it, the opposite thing would have happened: all matter would have moved toward order. This is impossible.
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, if a Big Bang did happen, then even today all that would exist would be particles of all matter strewn evenly throughout the universe. It couldn’t have formed planets and complex laws of physics all out of nothing. To say it did you would have to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false (which it isn’t so you can’t).
3 The Big Bang theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics
However, proponents of the Big Bang theory try to say that the universe was created out of nothing. Obviously this is scientifically impossible.
2 static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models
Models of a Static Universe have far fewer adjustable parameters than expanding universe models. The Big Bang theory is an expanding universe model. Hence, according to Occam’s Razor you must choose a Static Universe model over the Big Bang’s Expanding Universe model.
1 The Horizon Problem
The problem here is that if the Big Bang had occurred, firstly the universe is too large to have only happened 13.7 billion years ago, and secondly there is temperature uniformity which requires matter to have moved beyond the speed of light to become universally uniform. This of course, is impossible according to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, because nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
You might be asking yourself, “well, is everybody wrong then?” Well yes, it’s entirely plausible that everyone can be wrong – at least, the few people in the educational establishment behind pushing these false and unfounded theories.
Today, ideas like The Big Bang are pushed so vehemently, especially among higher education, that anyone who questions its validity, even in light of the countless flaws of the Big Bang Theory, can be subject to intense criticism, be ostracized and face social rejection, be given failing grades, and even face expulsion from universities. Professional licenses can be revoked, you can be rejected from associations, lose your job, and worse. All because you went against the prevailing notions.
It’s not about what is true. It’s about what the educational and governing authorities say they want you to believe and say is true. As a result almost all professors and scientists are too afraid of being ostracized from their communities and face losing their jobs to speak out against the prevailing notions.
This is why false ideas unsupported by science like the Big Bang theory and evolution are so pervasive. Most people believe what they are told without even bothering to research it for themselves; and the ones who are informed enough and think for themselves enough to question it are too afraid to say anything.
If you want to believe in the Big Bang theory, you must believe it one of three ways: by faith, by ignorance, or by indoctrination. By faith, because you can’t believe something which does not have adequate scientific evidence except as a philosophical viewpoint.
By ignorance because the only way to be certain in your mind that the Big Bang theory could work is because you don’t have all the facts. Or if you have been so far indoctrinated you haven’t made a logical conclusion with your own rational mind, you may have never even tried to question what you have been told.
However you must decide for yourself what you will believe. If you decide to believe in the Big Bang theory, that’s fine, just realize that since it is not supported by science, you have to believe it as a philosophical viewpoint, not as a scientific fact.
Source: techreader.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
The answer to all these problems is blasphemy. Einstein was wrong about everything.
!. There is no particle of light (photon). The photoelectric effect is just another version of the piezo electric effect where a distortion of a bond (by a changing electric and magnetic field) causes an electron held in place by an ionic bond to break free and create a current.
2. The speed of light is not constant in a vacuums (see my question toRobert Beatty in CERNS story) but is a wave traveling in the electric and magnetic fields emitted by objects and its velocity is determine by the strength of these fields.
3. There is no such thing as time.It is only a comparison of change/energy and one cannot break the units of energy (d^2/t^2) apart anymore than can determine the weight of a bolt by the torque applied to it. You can only see light coming towards you, not moving away from you. If the Earth formed 4 billion years ago all the light coming from the Big Bang would have travelled far past our present position and be gone and unobservable.
All of present physics is utter nonsense concocted to avoid the embarrassment and consequence of having to say your beliefs are fallacies.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
The speed of light is affected by the strength of the ambient gravity field. The stronger the field the slower the speed of light. The Shapiro effect anticipates this, and has since been measured in nature on several occasions.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Btw Herb, what about the SAM?
I reckon there’s some merit in revisiting those “fundamentals” and considering a more Pythagorean, geometric bases for elements. And since we’re mostly dealing with 3d structures, tetrahedra would be the most fundamental (as structurally everything else in 3d geometry would be derived from that). Are neutrons even necessary?
Have you seen this?
https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Atom-Introduction-Structured-Model/dp/1838128026
.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Here’s a review for a better idea of what it’s about.
https://risingtidefoundation.net/2022/02/10/book-review-the-nature-of-the-atom-an-introduction-to-the-structured-atom-model/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alcheminister,
IMO the universe is made up of three dimensional objects (spheres) and has no straight lines, just arcs. Using two dimensional objects (lines, planes, tetrahedrons (a cylinder is a hybrid of 2 and 3 dimensions)) is an attempt to model the universe into easier to comprehend structures using real numbers when most numbers are irrational (never ending or repeating) and are what describe reality (analog not digital).
A neutron is subatomic molecule consisting of an electron and proton contains no energy. When energy is added to it it becomes a hydrogen atom. It is essential in holding the nucleus of a stable element atom together by adding an electric force. A neutron not in a nucleus will decay into a proton, an electron, and a gamma ray within 10 minutes while another subatomic molecule, the alpha particle, is stable (converting into a helium atom). Why? A neutron has an exposed electron and the strong compression nuclear force (energy) is able to dislodge it (creating a hydrogen atom) while the alpha particle (four protons and 2 electrons) is able to form a structure (tetrahedron) that shield the electrons from the energy force. In larger stable atoms the electrons are in the center of a sphere whose surface consists of protons. If there are too many electrons they can appear at the nucleus surface and cause beta decay (the ejection of an electron from the nucleus) but if there are to few electrons there is not enough electrical force to hold the nucleus together resulting in fission (includes neutron (hydrogen) and alpha (helium) radiation). So neutrons re essential for the formation of the larger stable atoms.
Herb.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
I suggest you check out that book because it explains away the need for neutrons.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Even just the book review there might be interesting.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
Don’t know much about any of this but I thought the electrons in the valence orbit were looking to pair with other electrons in other atoms and if not able to, were aggressive, unstable. Or is my recollection all crocked?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mark,
The impetus for electrons to form an outer orbit of 8 electrons has to do with the formation of molecules, not atoms. By doing this the resulting object (molecule) is able to lose energy and form a more stable structure.
Herb
Chip Henry
| #
That is exactly the truth. There is no edge of space. There is no limit to energy. It is fully encompassing and as stated above, there is no beginning of time. Time is a measuring stick to be placed at one point and measured at another. Any distortions we see in our area of the universe will be related to an occurrence, just as a block hole event. If the government were not financing the exploration of origins, we would have long ago decided there wasn’t a hidden ball of energy that created a universe. We have everything we need to see no edge, no start, no end, only a view of our existence.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Let’s not forget that black holes are also a Big Bang falsehood. Einstein, Oppenheimer, and even NASA say they cannot exist. There are nine models for black holes—nine—because none of them fit the observable Universe. But, the astronomers, unfazed by this, still go looking for them and claim to find them.
It makes no sense to assume that gravity is all powerful when it is 10^38 times weaker than electromagnetism (EM) and, BTW, every bit of matter is made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons that all carry charge. You cannot have mass without lots of charge present. For that matter, gravity may simply be the London disperse effects that occur between bodies of matter, at one part in 10^38, which is a small residual EM effect. Thus, gravity might not exist which is why they are having such a hard time finding gravitons, etc.
So, since matter is always moving around in the Universe, there are static charges being built up all over the place. Solar wind is a good example of charges being sent elsewhere where a charge difference will eventually cause other effects. We see filamentous tendrils of charged matter all over the place and the production of quasars from galactic centers. Yeah, it’s an electric Universe and also a Steady State Universe that have never been properly shown to be invalid before they jumped on the Big Bang Hypothesis.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Charles,
The steady State Universe that is always changing.
The reason it is an electric universe is because energy is able to split matter (neutrons) into positive and negative electric parts. Static charges are a result of motion stripping electrons off objects. Solar winds are atoms stripped of their electrons by the concentrated energy at the sun and propelled horizontally into space where they re-unite with the electrons being emitted in a perpendicular (north-south) direction by energy. Energy is attracted to positive matter and repels negative matter.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Also the “law” of entropy is bullshit. The direction of energy (motion) is to equilibrium not randomness.
Herb
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
A psychologist/psychiatrist tried to “teach” me about physics yesterday. I said that in physics and nature things to equalization. He then said some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen.
“”…nature tends to equalization.” Hahahaha! Rubbish! Utter bloody tosh and nothing but. “Nature” is a descriptor, nothing else. And that “nature” tends to chaos, not balance or equalization:”
That’s of course why nature is so highly disorganized and you see completely “chaotic” “randomness” everywhere sometimes trees just explode or disintegrate for no reason whatsoever. And if there’s a heat source in a room, that heat source just keeps on concentrating that heat, making a sort of insulating shield until it implodes while never influencing the surroundings.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
*tend to equalization.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
I even had to explain to him that there is no chaos, just his inability to account for factors and limited perception, being an imbecilic, miniscule fractional aspect.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello herb:
And thanks for the explanation. My long ago paltry science education has faltered (like other things). I suppose this inability to bond is what results in free radical damage as in injecting aluminum into the bloodstream.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
“Cure for Cosmology’s Peptic Ulcer” and “Mysterious Dr X says, Universe is NOT Expanding” > two in ten part series at CanadaFreePress in 2010
Reply
Climated Heretic
| #
Plus another 30 problems with the big bang. See the following article.
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm
Yeah the big bang occurred really!!!
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Astronomers discovered that the universe was expanding in 1920. I believe the Bible confirms this expansion in Isaiah 40:22. Since it is expanding that is most likely the reason they came up with the “Big Bang” theory. There is no apparent end to the universe because God is omnificent. We do not know the speed of light at the beginning of the universe or if it has slowed down. On what basis are we to assume that the universe is 13.7 billion years old or that the earth is 4 billion years old? Several of the planets in our solar system are still giving off more heat that they get from the sun. How is this possible over millions of years, much less billions? If the planets were formed in the Big Bang why is Venus rotating backwards and Uranus rotation is horizontal? Astronomers say that the comets had to be created at the same time as everything else but I have read that in less than ten thousand years they will all be disintegrated. If this is true then we can deduce that the earth is only thousands of years old.
Why is it that they see a star burn out (super nova) about every 25 years but never see one created? According to NASA there is only a very thin layer of cosmic dust on the moon. If the universe were 13 billion years old there should be a lot more. The earth is losing its magnetism which provides protection from radiation. This magnetic field is dissipating at a constant rate. If the world were more than a few thousand years old, this field would have been too strong and at the present rate of decline will be gone in a few thousand years. The oceans would be a lot saltier if the earth were millions of years old. The silt deposition in the oceans is very shallow and has not even reached out to the farthest points,, indicating a young planet. The sun is burning out at a constant rate (like other stars) and would have been far to hot for life here if the world were millions of years old.
Reply
Lloyd
| #
Sorry, but the Bible is not a scientifically specific book. And you are stating opinions as if they are proven facts. Next, you will say it is all a Zionist Conspiracy.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Ultimately the Bible is the only book that matters and will determine our eternal destiny.
Hebrews 9:27
“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:”
Matt7:21
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
I see no problem with criticising the Big Bang theory, but if you are going to denigrate one theory, IMO you have a moral responsibility to replace it with another suggestion. What does Watson think is happening to/in our universe?
Reply
MattH
| #
Constant renewal and expiry and elementary constant renewal.
If you had (hypothetical) a ‘big bang’ near the outer boundary of a galaxy many of the stars and solar systems in that galaxy would circle around (loose terminology) that explosion so that the explosion would eventually become the center of that galaxy and matter would collapse back into the void the explosion created.
The explosion could occur anywhere in the galaxy but the void would eventually always end in the center.
Reply
Squidly
| #
No you don’t. Not at all. Nothing wrong with saying “your theory is bullshit, it is full of holes and I still have no clue how it actually works” .. you know why there is nothing wrong with this? .. because that’s precisely where we are!
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
The Big Bang Theory is in effect a dead horse, but what can you replace it with?
As telescopes evolved the furthest visible objects have got further and further away. All are apparently moving away from us. This instils the false premise that we are at or close to the centre of the universe.
The James Webb will show that there are still older and further away galaxies, some may well prove to be older than the current supposed age of the universe according to the Big Bang Theory. I wonder what those theorists will come up with to explain that little problem?
As I stated what can you posit instead of the big bang theory except the Steady State theory, yet this has LOCAL problems as everything is moving with respect to everything else and not at the same velocities nor in the same directions. The Big Bang Theory has everything moving away from us as does the expanding universe theory yet we are told that the Andromeda Galaxy is going to collide with the Milky Way at some point in the future. There seems to be something wrong with that state of theory.
There is also the problem of the speed of light, all current measurements have been made here on earth at the bottom of a gravity well, what if the speed is significantly faster way out there between galaxies, that would solve the expanding universe problems.
Science has many questions to answer and Theory should not colour fact until proven empirically and I do not think the Big Bang Theory deserves that status.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Happy to see you are still with us!!!
An observed fact is that when I tried to begin this comment at PSI nothing would stand still. The text kept shifting off of my screen. I went to another article and its comment section and this was not happening. So would you explain what is going on.
I suspect that Herb is the only one who should know whom you are. But, of course, we are aware that he claims to be a genius just as James McGinn claims. And I question: Where is James? Hope he is well and still with us too.
I am not sure, because I forget so easily, what your answer to this question might be: Do you agree with Richard Feynman, another Genius who claims that nothing is CERTAIN in SCIENCE except the ideas which are absolutely wrong as proved by simple, common observations (which includes quantitative measurements made by calibrated instruments made by different instruments?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Now, things are stable. Relative to STRANGE (unexplained) things like this happening, I a have a pendulum clock powered by a battery. From time to time the pendulum stops swinging and later starts swinging, on its own, again. Any knowledge from your experiences that could explain what a cause of these observations might be?
Also, now see that Joseph Olson probably knows about you.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Ambience, contacts, relative capacitance, electronic or mechanical flaws. It is not impossible that the battery reaches a certain level where it is “imbalanced” and unable to provide the required energy, and then perhaps with ambient, static equalization and effects, I dunno, very difficult to say… it might reach a point where it’s kinda functional again.
For instance, I have a very old PC with a very old CMOS battery. Depending on prior interference, sometimes the PC might not switch on because of the battery. So take the battery out, place it back in and suddenly it works.
Reply
Squidly
| #
You can’t actually “measure” the speed of light. You can only measure how long it takes to one place and back. You cannot directly measure it.
Reply
VOWG
| #
Ideas and theories are wonderful stuff. We can’t change a damn thing.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
All of this debate is just an academic excersize in futility. None of it will ever fit into man’s finite conception or material origin needed for verification. Just as is the origin matter itself. Thats before even considering the origin of life and the information (intelligent source) necessary to make all this incredible universe function in its intricate precision.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mark,
Your’s is a fatalistic philosophy. There is no need to search for truth (understand how God works) just accept one’s fate. What do you think is the distinction between man and animals that gives man an inherent desire to understand while animals just go with the flow?
Herb
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
And I agree, man’s reach should exceed his grasp. However many do not consider: Proverbs 16: 18-19
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.
Reply
Ozwedge
| #
The universe must have a finite area if it is expanding. That would suggest it is expanding into nothing. Is this scientifically possible ?
Reply
Tom
| #
We will never know how the universe began because man is too inane and cannot get beyond his own arrogance.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
The only way to know how the universe began would require you to have either made it or witnessed it (and without any observational error), even if you happened to essentially, guess correctly, you wouldn’t know and would be resorting to belief…so yeah, that seems like something quite beyond any fractional aspects’ perception or understanding.
Reply
Funny
| #
Why does no one ask the question why? Why are we presented with his models that we perceive intuitively and analytically are false?
The issue is obscurantism. The real physics has been sequestered. The real cosmology has been hidden. This is the deeper story.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
I tend to notice that in most of institutionalized “science”.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Sorry, meant as a reply to Funny.
Reply
GGordongoodguy
| #
Big Bang….Big Smang. The whole nonsense of the big bang is simply to help support the idea of space. Same for the faked moon landings. Same for NASA. Same for astronomy as a whole.
The earth is demonstrably flat. The lights one sees in the dark sky never change. Ever. They are not distant stars. They are lights in the firmament that have shown the exact same constellations for all of recorded history. How could that be if the so called universe is expanding?
Try not to be such a sheep. I mean most here have figured out covid is a hoax. Global warming is a hoax. The whole idea of a big bang and space is a hoax too. Wake up.
Reply
Squidly
| #
You’re nuts.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello goodguy:
If the world is flat, how are all those ships and planes circling around it all the time? You’ve been watching too much bitchute “Mag bitter truth.” Time to move on to Brien Ruhe and his aliens from space.
Reply
GGordongoodguy
| #
Tapley you are almost always spot on with your comments. You are wise to the Zionist ownership of all governments, the quackzines, germ theory, and many other topics. Kind of surprised you still believe in space balls and a globe. Never too late to learn right?
Check this website out. It’s on to the International Jue and many other subjects as well as the earth not a globe.
Oh yeah, forgot about the ships and planes. See the earth is flat and a disk of sorts. Think of a pizza. The North pole is the center and the crust is Antarctica. There is an equator and the tropics. It’s like an azimuth equidistant map. Which is exactly what the UN and WHO use as their logo. If a plane flies East or West for great distances there will be a very gradual turn towards North just like a compass. The pilot or sailor would never notice. Flights going due South would end up somewhere on the crust eventually. Flights going North would arrive at the North Pole just like on a globe. Curiously enough, nobody has ever circumnavigated the earth over the South Pole, and nobody ever will because it’s impossible. Check out pictures of the Antarctic coastline. You will observe 200 foot tall ice walls going seemingly forever. That is what contains the oceans on the flat earth. You are welcome.
Cheers!
Reply
GGordongoodguy
| #
Here s the website Tapley.
https://ifers.123.st/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Flathead,
The “lights” in the sky are not constant. If you cross the equator (middle of your pizza) you will not be able to see Polaris (North Star) no matter how strong your telescope. You will be able to see the Southern Cross which was not in the sky (except of a small amount of time in the tropics of the northern hemisphere) before you crossed the middle of your pizza. As you approach the center of your pizza the North Star will move to directly overhead. In the Southern Hemisphere the Southern Cross will move to a more vertical position as you move south. How can this happen if Antarctica (the crust) is not a point but a circumference?
Herb
Reply
Greg Spinolae
| #
One is left to ask only: “Is this a SCIENCE site or a RELIGIOUS site?”. You can all have your own debates over the compatibility of those two paradigms.
Reply
Carbon Bigjfoot
| #
GREG:
I think that this dilemma you have has been more than adequately answered by Steven C. Meyer in his masterpiece ” DARWIN’S DOUBT ” sub-title…… The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. After you read and digest its contents….perhaps you will find the answer you are looking for.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Bigfoot:
Not much chance of that. Most of the PSI crowd are thoroughly indoctrinated with Lyell’s uniformitarianism (just give me enough time and anything can happen) nonsense. How random chance is supposed to code complex information (has to come from intelligent designer) is not discussed. Darwinians are still trapped in the same evolutionary theory that the ancient Hindu’s formulated over 2000 years ago. Heres a couple of more problems for evolutionists:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KUxs34kG6bTW/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/3yHnSgU7bAwU/
Reply