One of the problems with e-mail and internet discussion boards - Intent doesn't always come through clearly. Been guilty of that myself at times. I thought maybe you used the :-? icon because you were concerned I was namecalling - which I try to avoid except perhaps when Nancy Leider is involved.

Imperfect though it sometimes is the internet is still better than having to pick up a phone to "talk" with you folks!

cyreks reply:

To PiMan:

Your evaluation about galaxies clustering or expanding is pure speculation.

The Universe I see today is in a perfect state of balance between galaxy velocities and gravity. This tells me this is a Steady State Universe.

There may be smaller galaxies and others that cause collisions but they are rare relative to the numbers.

Colleges today demand the right answers as they give them or you do not get your degree.

I personally believe in FREE THINKING. This allows individuals to evaluate data for themselves before they accept whatever they read or hear. This, of course, conflicts with the mandatory requirement to accept what the professor teaches.
The great scientists were all free thinkers. That is why it is a good idea to hear anyone out if they feel free to question what they hear.

I will never accept the 'big bang' because I do not consider it to be real physics or science.

Does anyone else see the paradox here?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Do you mean the one that explains why the CC (cosmological constant) couldn't make the universe static? It's not pure speculation. It follows directly and logically from all of the premises. A static universe, static because of the CC, would have to be very *VERY* evenly distributed. It would have to be so uniform as to look like a huge crystal. Almost any small deviation, and *poof*. The universe starts expanding or contracting.

If you mean the other one of my posts on colliding galaxies, it has been observed that almost all galaxies have small sideways velocities.

Gravity would draw the galaxies in, or if they had momentum, they would be flying apart. How does a static universe fit into this? Do you think the universe is *approaching* a static state? Do you believe that the galaxies momentum and gravity is balanced so that the universe is approaching a standstill? If you do, then the universe you believe in is not actually static. It's approaching static, but it won't actually get there.

If you believe that the CC causes the universe to be static, it's like balancing a sharpened pencil on it's point. The point where it would balance is infinitely small. *Any* deviation would be amplified many times in short order

If you don't believe in the CC, then your statement strengthens my case.

Why is the Big Bang Theory not real science, especially when a good number of observations and theories agree with it well? There is a lot of evidence to support a hot Big Bang, more than any other early universe model. What I really want to know is why you consider it not to be real science.

What is your support of this? I want to hear your reasons.

I don't see how we could see velocities of galaxies if the universe was static. In that case, there would be no velocities, since the galaxies wouldn't move. But if the universe is static, due to your argued balance between expansion and gravity, what caused the expansion to start? If galaxies are moving away from each other, at least some aspects of the Big Bang must be true.

In regard to the start of the Universe. I'd like to ask the people that make such claims that a big bang started everything off by asking; "What was there before it?"

The start of the Universe is way beyond our compehension. I am sick of Hawking [edited since it has offended some people] pretending he knows whats happened but he can't actually explain how there is a beginning and an end. Please stop pretending like you know how the Universe started. We are all pathetic human beings who are trying to be something significant.

That's foul and cowardly. Your comment shows far more about you than about Hawking.

Can you tell me why?

Even better, can you tell me how anyone can possibly comprehend how something comes out of nothing?

This comment was wholly unessessary. It's degrading and insulting. There is no place for such behaviour on this board. If the only way that you can make an argument is with insults, leave.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Good grief, whether Hawking is right or wrong, he's earned even my respect as a skeptic of some of his concepts for the simple reason he's still in the field putting his credibility on the line working to develop and support his theories. This in spite of the fact he's trapped in a near completely disabled body. Even if he's proven wrong tomorrow by a profound revelation into the nature of the universe, I would still give this man 150% of my respect for the simple acheivement he makes just waking up in the morning. If you really want to tackle someone like Hawking, better come up with something a little more effective than trite ad hominum jabs.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Know the Truth.

I didn't. In fact, I asked if someone could explain how any human could comprehend how the Universe started.

Well that clarifies things, just another troll. Even so, that last crack was more tasteless than anything I saw in the other thread.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

WOW Dax you go to the U of I too?!!?
I'm here (there) right now!

Actually it was a Dr. Wandelt Ast 306

__________________
I'm a student... go easy on me.

I considered that, I just couldn't think of a nice way to say it. You are probably right. Among others, Jim - mostly covered though. I especially like the idea that a universe where galaxies are flying apart at a high rate of speed could be considered static. Truth Seeker, if you can suggest a better explanation of the observed data, we're all ears. Being incomplete does not make BB wrong. It just means we don't have all the answers yet. In any case, your post was largely a personal attack on one of the brightest minds in the world and can simply be dismissed. As noted, it says more about you than it does about Hawking (or BB for that matter).

Besides losing all credibility, Truth Seeker, you may want to be careful you don't get yourself banned.

Ban?

__________________
Planning a vacation to Thailand? http://www.ezwaythailand.com

"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." - Carl Sagan

Are you asking if he should be banned or are you asking what a ban is? (Since you're new)

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Asking if he should be. The comments about Hawking are extremely inappropriate. From what i've gathered of his other posts, he seems to flame (or at least degrade) people who aren't willing to accept his beliefs. That seems to be what the BA is talking about here: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4030

__________________
Planning a vacation to Thailand? http://www.ezwaythailand.com

"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." - Carl Sagan

Take a look at the forum rules.

It's possible that he has broken #2, #3, or #9. But that's for the BA to say.

I could explain it, but not in a way you'd be able to comprehend.

Okay, that's a joke, but there's a grain of truth in it for all of us. To suggest that it's impossible for anybody to understand something because I don't (or can't) understand would be the height of hubris.

There are smarter people (much smarter people) out there than either you or I, Truth Seeker. In fact, there are much smarter people than either you or I on this very bulletin board.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Maybe even in this thread... :wink:

to Truth Seeker:

We don't understand now the whole of the beginning of the universe, but we are learning more. The BB model is just the theory that fits best with the evidence. If you have any more evidence against the BB, post it! We're not afraid.

As for the "what happened before the BB" question, please read the entirety of the thread, from the beginning to the last post before you ask that again! I can't tell you how tedious it is to answer the same challenge over and over and over and over!

Lets step aside from ourselves for a few minutes, to realize, mainly, that there are among us those that will comprehend and understand things that many of us will not... Most use only a small fraction of their minds, what is available to them in their point in time, and to use more would mean that they would need to acquire more of that thinking power to comprehend more...

If an understanding from one's view is more than another may comprehend, it does not mean that that comprehension is false or inaccurate... its just beyond most of our own thought processes....

To listen to one that has a greater understanding of things than we do, not only gives us an ear to things unknown, it gives us a chance to increase our own comprehension of things... we learn more from those of us who know more... and to listen and learn and to never stop listening and learning will forever give us the needed source of insite and understanding that may be needed...

The observations of these men/women out there may not hold any proven facts concerning the births or origins of life and our universe, but i would trust the fact that they, themselves, had taken thought and understandings from previous thinkers and incorporated them into their own work, which, in turn, prolly helped them to better understand what it was/is that they are trying to explain, or theorize, to us...

..keep the mind moving with thought... keep the ideas open for new views on those thoughts... to better explore and understand all areas open to us... and to better comprehend that we are, in fact, proven, known to be, beyond any doubt, a living, breathing, sentient race of beings... trying to understand just who and what we are...

If it weren't for the work of those before us.. the work infront of us may never be comprehended...

__________________
. ..-={A}=-.. .

Very nice Arramon. Welcome to the board.

Two things:

1) King Neptune: Yes, I'm a grad student in the astro dept.

Thanks for the response. I'm wondering how much you could have been moved, but I don't know how well Dr. Wandelt would have explained it.

2) I want to say that I don't know exactly how the universe began, I just know what happened after it began. As far as I know, no one has shown convincingly how the Big Bang started. I think that half of this thread could be written off because people don't understand what exactly the BB theory describes and what it doesn't.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't know if this applies to TruthSeeker, but this is the rallying cry of many conspiracy theorists. They seem to think that simply because they believe the conspiracy they are the openminded one as opposed to the close minded doubters. What this thinking misses is that you must not only be open minded, but also discriminating. The open minded thinker will not only fairly consider the alternatives, but carefully evaluate the evidence and only consider the alternative viable if there is sufficient evidence.

It is not open minded to accept that a phenomenon such as PX is real when there is no evidence whatsoever in its favor and a huge volume of contradictory evidence. That would be gullible.

TruthSeeker, consider yourself very strongly warned. Watch your tone. There will not be a second warning.

I would hope that others will edit the phrase from quotes in their later posts.

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

Pinemartin, I think it should stay. Otherwise, no one new will know how truley idiotic that statement was.

edited for posterity:

Truth Seeker wrote:

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.