(August 31, 2011 at 9:21 am)Diamond-Deist Wrote:

(August 31, 2011 at 8:23 am)Citereh Wrote: This might be a very black and white way of looking at this subject but...

If you do not agree with the science based theories (which are grounded by facts, evidence and observational rational conclusions based on what facts and evidence we do have at this current point in time).

...... or is it? that is my job to show you otherwise, you say it's the best conclusion we have maybe it is maybe it isn't.

Hopefully after this discussion you will be able to judge for yourself.

Right... That's what we're all waiting for, your theory which can better account for all the observations and physics we have pointing at an expansion event.

My patience only extends so far.

@Diamond-Deist, what are your qualifications for proposing such a theory?

Quote:...... or is it? that is my job to show you otherwise, you say it's the best conclusion we have maybe it is maybe it isn't.

Indeed maybe it isn't.....but then I suppose that would make all the 100's possibly 1000's of scientists who actually do subcribe to the BB model as the BEST theory wrong.

In which case I think you'd be better off convincing them of their inadequate scientific findings than us, who are mere mortals in comparision in the field of the sciences.

Kind Regards,

Citereh

(August 31, 2011 at 6:19 am)Diamond-Deist Wrote: ^^ Seriously you don't read or comprehend very well do you?

I'm in your profile right now, singing "Diamonds are forever" while my cursor is hovering over the "Add to Ignore List" option, and I wasn't even tempted to do that with 'Godhead/Godnose' who was an insufferable buffoon of a poe/troll. Start the discussion already!

Though to be honest, I don't expect you to. I don't even think you're legit Diamond. No one is stupid enough to start off a discussion like this where they claim any given theory, not just Big Bang, isn't valid and then not provide any kind of meaningful substance, rebuttal(s) or follow up with alternative(s). You keep saying you're getting to it, you're going to eventually tell us why its not reliable, *point is* you should have brought it with you from the start in the OP.

Now we've all been very patient with you and this is how you thank us? By being an unlikeable twat? Not once have you given any sensible objection you may have to the Big Bang model; you've ranted more about a non-demonstrable creator god who's existence or definition can't be verified, hence why we've fucking responded to that, because that's all you've presented!

Seriously, you better pull your finger out of your arsehole and get your act together quickly Diamond.

Welsh Cake, can you send me your address so I can send you a large tub of vaseline so you can remove that pole out of your as*, stop being pathetic, I am at work because I have a life off the net ..... I will begin with an opening when I get home in the next few hours.

If you want to put me on ignore then fking go ahead mate, if you don't think I'm legit then whatever I'm not that sort of person, I have an opinion, I will explain my opinion this will be today.

(August 31, 2011 at 9:36 am)FaithNoMore Wrote: @Diamond-Deist, what are your qualifications for proposing such a theory?

Much the same qualification as creationists - an abiding faith in the power of utter insensible stupidity.

Diamond reminds me very much of the Steorn Orbo debacle.

Ok lets start ......

First I will state my position so it is clear.

I have stated that I believe the Big Bang theory to be invalid, what do I mean in detail? I mean that I believe and will attempt to show that the Big Bang theory is no more relevant than other models of creation/universe origin.
why? because as most can tell the Big Bang theory has been some what forced upon the general public as the answer! Now any scientists worth his salt will happily say "Well we believe it is the most provable and has the most credentials of all theories" yet it is not that nonchalant.
As some of you here may have witnessed questioning this theory is met with hostility, not just here but all across the scientific community because whether they care to admit or not this is the model that A) has been invested in the most, careers, jobs, advancement is all attached to this theory above all others, these people (scientists) are in the business of knowing more than you, you can automatically see where a bias may arise B) Believe it or not this BB model is a reconciliation between science and biblical teachings, the Church has actually approved the BB theory as in their terms it points to an unexplainable singularity of origin so the 7 day creation has been pushed back somewhat, an ad hoc approach which you may see as a pattern as we move forward, C) Certain members of the general public who have a basic understanding have been given the "evidence" and they are happy to accept by those in the know that this is how things are ...... and with all this proof why should it be different, well!

Now I've stated my position I will briefly explain how I wish to go about this discussion.

Firstly to make my point I have to attempt to dismantle the BB theory, simply how can I convey it's flaws if i don't show/highlight or prove them? I will for the benefit of those who have admitted limited knowledge of cosmology and the lingo be speaking on occasion in layman's terms so for those with more technical know how don't try to shoot my child like examples down, I'm not doing it for your benefit.

(August 31, 2011 at 8:23 am)Citereh Wrote: It is said that the electron was discovered in 1897 by British physicist J. J. Thomson at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University.

Completely off-topic, but I just thought I'd mention that I currently work right next to the Cavendish Laboratory, and the entire road is now named after J J Thomson.

So the points of interest will be the basis of the BB theory, the examples that if they don't hold up neither does the theory.

The most popular are .....

Cosmic Radiation Background or CRB.

Dark Energy/Matter.

Inflation / Expansion of the universe.

Each of these components are needed for the BB theory to stand on two legs.

For the purpose of this discussion regardless of belief I will be taking the stance of purely Anti BB theory and I would appreciate you act as an opposite, so no matter whether you fully believe in it or not for the purpose of getting the most out of this discussion please take the role of pro BB.

At the end of this discussion I will explain possible alternatives, future direction and my personal thoughts, but as stated first the case must be made.

Just a couple of rules, can we please stick to the three subjects of BB principal I have listed, one they are the most popular, two throwing around other principals like Deuterium Abundance although relevant is not something I want to address at this point in spite of the three previous principals, we can possibly address that later.

Soooooo lets start with Dark Matter / Energy.