The Big Bang NEVER Made Sense
Philosopher of Science, Michael Armstrong, makes a beautiful statement about the illogical nature of the “Big Bang” idea and a brief overview of why it’s not scientifically supported.
We’re suffering from a bad case of “scientism” – the turning of “scientific consensus” into religious belief.
Positing “the Big Bang” as the beginning of the universe is just a less-religious way to say “And then a miracle happened!”
The images from the new James Webb Space Telescope are awesome!
See more here bitchute.com
Header image: Phys.org
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
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.
bill
| #
Been saying this since the inception of this crazy idea. Even to a child it makes no sense. It’s like setting off a nuke and expecting it to create order and life. Thus is the power of consensus. There are examples all through history. I call it the lynch mob mentality; go with the crowd, ramifications be damned.
Reply
Tom
| #
Could it be that the basic construction of the body follows that of the universe?
Reply
Saighdear
| #
Ok Okay, … Imagine if you were on the original big ( planet ?) and it blew up.
1. how big was it? 2. was there life on it? 3. WHERE did it come from. 4. What was the determing fact or feature to cause it to Bang. ….. and so on. 4. Universe is expanding such that we can “see” where it came from – that Dot of the Big bang. 5. Maybe mor etime & science should have been spent on the LOGIC rather than the Maths ( or science) . – Maths is always good but when you get to astronomous figures or values …..
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
As Bill said above, it makes no sense.
For about 60 years [I’m85], I have been waiting for someone to debunk the BBT.
The whole thing is based on a mathematical backward extrapolation of the suspected red shift of an expanding universe.
AND… many many so-called brilliant “scientists” just went along with the theory.
Why??
It seems to me that all of the anti-BBTers were treated like all the present day anti-AGWers and anti-vaxxers.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Go read the book, The Big Bang Never Happened published in 1992 by Eric Lerner
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Never-Happened-Refutation/dp/067974049X
I bought the book back in the 1990s and never regretted it and still in my library.
Reply
Photios
| #
So: if the Universe is binary,
can’t we just accept that people are too?
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
“Shift On Shift” in a Time magazine interview on Dec 14, 1936 the father of the big bang said it was a hoax. “Mysterious Dr X says, Universe is NOT Expanding” at CanadaFreePress
Reply
Eric the Red
| #
“Secondly, since we are all familiar with the concept of nothing, the average person should be able to realize that you cannot start creation with it.” Armstrong
But what’s the definition of ‘creation’? True creation is where/when something more now exists than what existed just before. Thus creation must involve something from nothing, although other preexisting elements may or may not also be present. Otherwise, Armstrong is just talking about a concept which best fits the definition of redesign, innovation, recombination, permutation, or the like.
By glossing over the true definition of ‘creation’, Armstrong has immediately shifted his context from science into philosophy, without either realizing it or admitting it. Thus the larger contextual issue here is that these are philosophical questions, not scientific questions, and so science has no business purporting to think it can find related answers, which are beyond its purview. Examine it with set theory or the like, if you don’t believe me.
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
‘Creation’, I would say was a wrong choice of word. What Armstrong was alluding too and not apparent, was you cannot get something from nothing or he was saying you cannot create something from nothing.
Regards
Climate
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Talk about stuffing up signatures today!! Ha ha.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Michael Crichton said back in 2003 when he gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
These people have written about the Big Bang Theory and disagree with it.
‘Seeing Red’ by Halton Arp
‘The Big Bang Never Happened’ by Eric J. Lerner
‘The Big Bang Theory Under Fire’ by William C. Mitchell
“Wave Structure of Matter Cosmology:
How our Finite Spherical Observable Universe exists within Infinite Eternal Space.” by Geoff Haselhurst
‘The Big Bang NEVER Made Sense’ by Michael Armstrong
‘The Top 30 Problems of the Big Bang Theory’ by Tom Van Flandern
Hence Big Bang is just consensus, Not Science Period!
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Oops, sorry for the double signature!
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Fixed it for you.
By the way that is a helpful list I have the first two but none of the others will look into it to see about buying another book with more updated information.
Thank you!
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Hi Sunsettommy
Thank you for fixing it! It makes the reply redundant!! The law of unintended consequences I suppose.
The following link will provide you with the information you need for the list above:
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm
This was one of the original discussions debunking BBT. I knew something was wrong about the BBT and when I came across this article by Tom Van Flandern, it just confirmed my suspicions. Tom is no longer with us.
The other links or discussions are at the end of the article, just after the references listed.
I hope this helps in your search
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
James
| #
Until a better hypothesis comes along we’ll have to live with the BBT, or rather, with the results of any applications it may be used in. Just like Newton’s or any other theory, it’s the results it gives that can be compared with observable physical reality that count, nothing else. As also the alternative theories, if there are any.
Reply
Leonard Winokur
| #
Two other theories that are worshipped yet fatally flawed is Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. If you take the sentence you’ve just read as evidence that I’m a “Creationist” then you didn’t get as far as the last three words of my previous sentence. The distinct “genetic” theory of evolution or “Neo-Darwinism” as it’s known as is so full of “Just so” stories, Alice-in-Wonderland-type beliefs, unexplained (and unexplicable) dogma, and logical fallacies, as to be utterfly untenable.
Reply
Leonard Winokur
| #
(Improved version of my above comment.)One other theory that is worshipped yet fatally flawed is Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, If you’ve inferred from what I’ve just written that I’m a “Creationist” then you may have missed the last three words I wrote there. The very different “genetic” theory of evolution or “Neo-Darwinism” as it’s known is another untenable paradigm. It is so full of “Just so” stories, Alice-in-Wonderland-type beliefs, unexplained (and unexplicable) dogma, and logical fallacies, as to be nonsensical. Yet this model continues to be worshipped too by most contemporary evolutionary biologists.
Reply
Frank S.
| #
Acc. to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. It is eternal. “String Theory” proposes that the smallest form of matter is Energy. All that exists is made of energy. The Book of Revelation tells us that God is the “Alpha and the Omega”, the first and last .God has always existed. God is eternal. Is God Energy? The Big Bang theory claims a ‘unified particle’ was the source of all matter in the universe. All matter contains energy. That means, there was this particle and NOTHING else. I propose that the creation of the universe came about when the only existent thing was rapidly and widely dispersed.to become the universe we know today. Now, if God was the only thing that existed, where did all the Energy come from to create all the atoms & molecules of matter? It makes sense if you accept that the universe and everything in it is made from the substance, the Energy of the Living God.
Reply