Topic: There was no Big Bang, Truth shall set you free!!!! - page 12. (Read 11591 times)

I think God must exist in both alternatives, whether the universe had or not a beginning.

If the universe had a beginning then it has a spaceless and timeless cause (God)

If the universe didn't begin to exist, then the entropy would already have turned all matter into a dead homogeneous thing unless there is interference from something timeless and immaterial (God) to keep the order of the universe.

The universe itself is a closed system and as such it tends to chaos over time. If the past is infinite and God does not exist, then the universe would have to be 100% homogeneous, and it's not.

Plus, I also think if the big bang happened, the universe would be a perfectly symmetric expanding agglomeration of energy, it would never have formed atoms, galaxies, etc unless something non-material caused them to form.

I have no specific religion, I'm just using logic.

No dumb ass, if the universe had been around forever, we wouldn't have third gen stars now, we'd be on nth generation stars constructed from what little matter could coalesce. When taken to infinity no matter could combine, it would be too spread out. I read the paper and understand it.

Do you?

Uh...no.  None of these thoughts necessarily lead to any other.  These are all just random statements that in no way can be inferred from the others.  You just randomly drew some dots and started connecting them willy-nilly.   It's about as random as saying, "He didn't say hello to me, so he obviously wants to kill me."

When you learn about science from the "gospel herald" ... well, nevermind.

Many stars did Die out, dont you read?

also suns are born and become something else. one of our stars can become a black hole, and everything gets taken into it, when it goes to its parth. our galaxy is young, Thats what this tells me.  We havent got to the age of nearby suns turning to a black hole quite yet.  Once it does, Im sure god has other plans for us and more life somewhere else in his infinite space. 

lol

Here's the paper itself
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093v3.pdf

My problem is, if the universe is infinite, why has it not reached a state of maximum entropy? Why have the stars not all burnt out and all matter dispersed completely.

yes cause in order for him to exist there must be no beginning of time.  Life is about life and death.  If you know this, you think those stars you see in the sky are still burning suns right, but in truth some of them died long ago before this earth was even alive.  The stilll shine cause the light is still traveling towards us. 

So if there is a center, this would prove god does not exist?

God could have still created the big bang.

IF there is no center cause space and time are infinite.  dark matter is never ending.  Meaning there is life just like us or quite different then us.  God created seperate beings the proof is the different species on our planet.

Don't tell Sheldon!

Oh good. We are finally getting to the bottom of things. All those faulty Big Bang theories have been clouding our thinking so much, that it is difficult to advance true science to find out what is really going on in our universe.

Here is a second site that explains this alternative thinking - http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm. When one looks at the other info in this site, one begins to question if there isn't a conspiracy against truth in astronomy, just like there are conspiracies against truth in medicine and truth in law. Maybe it's a conspiracy against truth altogether.



EDIT: One of the things that virtually proves that red shift has nothing to do with distance of stars is this. We find red-shift stars on all sides of us. If red shift means that the stars are traveling away from us at high velocity, wouldn't that mean that the earth is the center of the universe? From the article at the site listed:

It's not even really new information.  People don't win Nobel Prizes for things a lot of people already know.

If you have even a rather superficial understanding of the Theory of Relativity, you know that the apparent age of the Universe depends on where you are.  Since the apparent age of the Universe is dependent upon locality (Edit: i.e spacetime, not just space), you can't even call the Big Bang a single event.  

Imagine this scenario:

Let's assume that there is a wormhole through which we can transmit and receive communication with another planet ~1 billion lightyears away from us.

Using our 'wormhole telephone,' we communicate to the other planet the apparent age of the Universe from our locality.  Then, some beings on the other planet reciprocate.

Well, now we have a problem.  While we communicated an apparent age of ~14 billion years, let's say the other planet communicated an apparent age of ~15 billion years.  Which is it?  Are they right or are we right?  Edit:  More likely, the reported apparent ages would be the same, still leaving the problem of reconciling the issue of locality.

Think about this for second...seriously.  If we consider both conclusions as valid, then that means that some 'stuff' in the Universe can be older or younger than other 'stuff.'

And then...which directlon  do you look?  If we point the Hubble one way and see some galaxies that are several billion years old, we can also point the Hubble the opposite way and see the same thing.  But now we have another problem!  

Imagine according to the Big Bang Theory that the Universe is expanding in all directions from a single point.  If we can see galaxies in both directions that appear the same age, that means that we must *always* appear to be at the center of the Universe, no matter where we are!  If  we weren't (i.e. if we were off-center), then galaxies viewed by looking in one direction would appear either older or younger than galaxies viewed in the other direction!  Accordingly, there must be a better explanation.

Tricks of perspective are fun.

This paper doesn't prove the Big Bang didn't happen, it just offers an internally consistent alternative - which is more than can be said for the various bibles out there.

I'll wait for the Nobel Prize on that...

If I think I'm holding an apple in my hand only to find out it's not an apple, it doesn't mean that I'm holding a banana.  It *could* be a banana, but simply knowing that I'm not holding an apple doesn't say anything about bananas whatsoever.

Yes, if you ignore the blatant mathematical errors and the fact that the person who wrote the bible thinks the earth is 5000 years old yes I suppose you could say the bible was scientific, in the same way that news journalists are always factually accurate about everything they report on.

Lets not get into the heaven is hotter than hell argument to prove the point shall we?

if you read the bible you will see it was in your face before science all along

Just because there may have been no big bang doesn't mean that god exists.