|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
During my 10 years' career being a journalist in the heartland of real science (which is Europe), I had the fortune (misfortune as well) to meet great many renowned scientists. I interviewed a couple of them as well.
Most of them have no clear idea what Big Bang really was, or how it came to be. Some admitted that the physics of today is nothing but a religious dogma propagated by crank mathematicians. They think that the true spirit of science died with the arrival of Isaac Newton. Some of them are trying to bring back the spirit of truth to scientific works again.
Erm, you might ask them to look out into the night sky and observe it first hand. The BBT is not about the birth of the universe so much as it is about it's development.
The evidence that our universe has expanded from a hot, cramped mass of ionized radiation to a progressively more entropic state is simply staggering. It is literally observable (cosmic background radiation being one of many ways to see for ourselves).
What do you mean by the spirit of truth? As far as I know the true spirit of science is to investigate the border between the known and the unknown, thus there will always be facets that are open to interpretation.
To bad you didn't list these scientists. Please feel free to post the transcripts of your interviews. Einstein had predicted an expanding universe but because he had no evidence he altered his formulas to compensate.
But, perhaps your right lets go back to the way Europe was a few hundred years ago. We'll have a few inquisitions here and there and kill anyone attempting to study anything other then the bible. Yup, that makes sense. Ridiculous nonsense.
It seems pretty obvious those renowned scientists said no such thing and you're just projecting your own words into their mouths, Bill.
There has never been any Big Bang or whatever else. These are dogmatic religions to gull the masses. Anyone can make a theory in his head, and then go on preaching that this is the way things happened.
Just because you and a couple of random un-named guys you met once don't understand this theory means less than nothing. I suggest you take them with you back to school where most advanced countries deal with this in advanced physics, you know, that stuff what you do before you get into Uni, or maybe you went to one of those ridiculous schools that teach the earth is 6 or 7000 years old ??
Please present your scientific evidence that there was no Big Bang?
The point is hundreds of astronomers, particle physicists, and the like with a string of degrees, awards, published papers, make objective observations, each one adding a piece to the puzzle. That puzzle has taken shape over the last 50 years to show a picture that looks very much like a Big Bang.
Alternatively, a lot of Young Earth Creationists dogmatically adhere to a literal biblical interpretation and go on preaching that this is the way it happened, but singularly fail to produce any evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny.
Sorry, DH, but the young earth creationists can produce tons of overwhelming evidence. Ten examples, any one is sufficient to provide absolute truth:
1. Their pastor told them so.
2. God spoke to them personally and told them so.
3. They do not understand the BB theory, and don't care to, so it is false.
4. Their neighbor says it never happened.
5. They have read it on the WWW.
6. Some "biologists" claim evolution can't happen; ergo, the BB can't either.
7. Creation took 7 days, not a microsecond; it says so in the bible.
8. Years of experience in the macro world shows that everything has a cause, even those things in the subatomic world. Extrapolation of observed data from one subset of the universe into a different one is always true.
9. Lots and lots and lots of people don't believe what all of the known evidence points to; it is thus false.
10. Only those "scientists" that have a deep belief in God and the bible also possess knowledge of truth. The rest are from Satan, desiring only to confuse us, and their information is always false.
"Please present your scientific evidence that there was no Big Bang?"
I have met a bunch on real scientists who has no time (and attention) for crank theories like Big Bang. There are lots of such crazy theories, like 'infinite universes' in which it is claimed that universes continuously spring out of nothing, and then vanish into nothing (no explanation given as how it happens) and so on. Quantum M is another one. The list goes on, just like the number of religion on the planet, anyone can make a dogmatic theory in physics these days.
The real challenge is to do science without magic.
During my career I have figured out how the scientific community really looks like (at-least in Europe). There is one camp (the cranks). There is another (the rationals).
So who are these real scientists then? Big Bang as crank theory? Did they tell you that or is that your conclusion because they expressed that it cannot be 100% known for sure as the maths goes a bit wonky before a few nano seconds?
What's your alternative? Please share your thoughts with us.
No, you haven't, Bill. You've created an army of sock puppets who agree with everything you say.
But Bill, your "career" is available for all to see, one of criminal activity...
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/22/busin … akers.html
Are you OK?
You seem to be very angry. You are calling everyone Bill's sockpuppet. Furthermore, you are dragging up someone's personal activity on an internet forum where the motion of discussion is a theory. You have lost something.
I would wholeheartedly welcome all to read Ultimater's vicious insults on this hub...
Now you are dragging up the comments written by someone on a certain hub (and where I never commented myself), and you are focusing on what you claim it to be 'insults'.
The motion of this discussion is a theory, and it has nothing to do with personal comments on a hub. Again, you have lost something.
The behavior you are displaying here, amounts to nothing but displaced anger.
Your words are here for all to see, Bill, and they are vicious, well beyond that which would easily see you permanently banned from Hubpages. That other link doesn't work, but this one does.
Should I copy paste those comments here? Shall I report it to the administrators here? You can't hide behind a sock puppet with them, Bill.
You are still bringing up issues which have no relation to the motion of this thread.
You are claiming everyone is Bill. While you have your own (visible) sockpuppet playing around here.
This thread has no issues - apart from how much pure bu!!sh!t can be dribbled into a forum thread. Give it up.
It's pretty obvious you made that sockpuppet, Bill.
So then ignore him and answer mine and Disappearinghead's questions: Who are these scientists you know who are rejecting the Big Bang theory?
"I have met a bunch on real scientists who has no time (and attention) for crank theories like Big Bang."
Let me join the others in asking WHO are these scientists you are speaking of, what have they contributed to the body of "real science" you are speaking of.
lol. ya but they have time to say "god" created everything. can you say "puff puff pass"
The number of scientists that I have interviewed (who reject Big Bang) is more than half a hundred. How do you expect all those names to be presented here for your amusement?
I suspect ten or twelve along with contact details would be enough so that people reading this can follow up on the statements made.
Of course there is an 'on the fence' opinion, which is that the 'creationists' could view the fact that any 'big bang' was still something created by a supreme God/power, and that even then whatever caused the big bang had to be created by something too.
Just my thoughts, as I kind of believe in something all powerful, but also believe in The Big Bang, but feel that was all part of the bigger plan by the unknown power/powers that be. That said I will bow out now as I hate the religion forums purely because of the hate and animosity in here. It never feels remotely spiritual or loving when I venture in here, and that goes for either side of the debates that occur here.
Out of here now
Misty...I'm with you on this one...have never understood why God could not have used physics to create..LOL...
I have no idea whether or not there was a Big Bang...but I find this posting an odd one. It seems to have been posted purely to incite?
+1, not even sure what I am doing in here at all to be honest as I usually avoid the place like the plague. Glad you understood the logic of where I was coming from, and hope to catch up with you elsewhere on HP soon, (I so hate these religious forums, too much hate and bad feeling going on here, which is crazy when you consider the nature of the forum topic lol).
Misty, I'm new to Hubpages, but have dealt with forums before in other places. As you know they are all pretty much the same. But where you have passionate people, you'll have passionate discourse. It's not pretty, but it does make you think. Then you have posters like this one. It's for the controversy. He's not saying anything.
Yep he is trolling big time and won't / can't back up any of his empty statements. I am not going to respond to him any more as he really isn't worth it and is only getting a reaction he wants, (sadly he has no intelligence to argue his case articulately). It really isn't worth wasting time in forums dealing with complete idiots, and I have just remembered why I don't normally venture into these particular forum topics. Anyway, out of here for sure now, and won't be back as I have money to earn and betters places to be than this thread I got drawn into against my better judgement.
Hope to catch up with you elsewhere as you seem a decent sensible person
But, you're not a journalist and you never interviewed anyone, Bill.
"I suspect ten or twelve along with contact details would be enough so that people reading this can follow up on the statements made."
What do contact details have to do to make people follow up on the statements made? Will you be visiting them and pestering their neighborhood, asking explanations why Big Bang never happened?
I hope you have an idea of professional ethics.
Nooooo, contact details merely prove these people exist and you are not making empty statements, plus if they really feel this their opinions will be easily found online, or via a simple email (I wasn't suggesting postal addresses lol).
In fairness it has been proven that the stars are still in the process of moving outwards constantly, evidence of a massive explosion millions of years ago. The science is irrefutable, what can be debated is whether the science itself came from a supreme God/Power/Being, as something must have created whatever created the Big Bang, (confusing eh?).
"In fairness it has been proven that the stars are still in the process of moving outwards constantly, evidence of a massive explosion millions of years ago. The science is irrefutable,"
" what can be debated is whether the science itself came from a supreme God/Power/Being,"
You have no idea what science is, but you want email addresses of renowned scientists to know why they reject the theory of Big Bang. What you actually want is to clear your immature suspicion. If you don't know what science is, you don't deserve any further information.
Please fill in the blanks:
Grow up, I took a stack of sciences during my education and topped my classes in most of those. You are clearly a troll who cannot back up what he is trying to argue and are simply trying to provoke a response. As you clearly can't even provide names of all these many scientists you claim 'dismiss the Big Bang Theory', it seems evident you are a fraud. Do you really think you would win a court case based on your attitude in court? "Yes Your Honour, I do have many experts who can confirm this, but I can't give you their names!".
This is beyond laughable. Go and troll elsewhere as no-one will take you seriously here any more (if they ever did). You just lost your own case in your last two comments.
(oh and as for the immaturity, guessing I am older and more experienced than you based on your previous comments alone).
BTW, I have no 'suspicions to quell', (this makes no sense in English).
Now this is a court case! When people look foolish before everyone, their natural reaction (which is revenge) is to call the dissenter (who made them look foolish) a troll.
If you know what science is, then you could not have said anything like these-
1) "In fairness it has been proven that the stars are still in the process of moving outwards constantly, evidence of a massive explosion millions of years ago. The science is irrefutable,"
2) "what can be debated is whether the science itself came from a supreme God/Power/Being,"
Naming a few scientists is not a big deal anyway. What is annoying is to make such an effort to amuse a dunce, who has no understanding of the significance of those names. Obviously, your belief in supernatural and your wild tendency for name-calling makes you 'older and more experienced'.
Science is methodology. Scientific method comprises conjectures and refutations, as explained by Karl Popper. A scientific theory is falsifiable, i.e. it makes predictions which, if proven false, falsify the theory. A 'theory' that is not presented in a falsifiable form is not scientific.
The big bang theory, like any true scientific theory, cannot be proven absolutely true because that would require testing every one of its predictions at every place, through all time, clearly an impossible task.
However, it could be proven false, by verified contradictory evidence. To date, no-one has presented such evidence, while the weight of corroborative evidence is overwhelming.
Every scientific theory is actually a claim. And a claim has to be presented with adequate evidence to prove it to be true (a scientific law).
If the 'weight of corroborative evidence' were really so overwhelming for big bang, then big bang would have long been displaced from the status of a theory (a claim). Instead, we would now be discussing how to manipulate the scientific laws that were responsible for the creation and expansion of the universe (as big bang suggests).
Without adequate evidence, a scientific theory is nothing but a set of crank ideas that someone dreamed up in his head. The evidence that are presented in support of big bang, are ridiculous. It's already a fake theory.
I didn't really expect you to understand. You asked what science is. I told you. You didn't like my answer so you got off on your boring rant again. Good luck and goodbye.
I didn't really expect you to understand. You didn't like my answer so you got off on your dull blathering again. Best of luck.
You went back and edited your response to make yourself look less irrational. Fooling nobody!
Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Thought you would have learned this by now with all your time cruising these pages of the slightly dim and uneducated
That time you were blathering. Now you are lying. I didn't change my post. It's you who have realized, after an hour, how dumb your replies were.
Bill, you have told me on no certain terms evidence is religion. You can see it here after wading through all the vicious insults you made.
"Evidence means that YOU have been persuaded of a theory. Persuasion is a hallmark of religion. In Science, we don't have use for evidence."
So much troll bait here...
Ultimater, I congratulate you sir/ma'am on a successful expedition. Here ya go... you've earned it:
Omg...You have not said one thing that makes sense....Misty...I'm out of here as well...and sir...believe me, there is only one fool on this page...it's not Misty...and it is not I. I see a 3 year old stomping his foot. Over and out...amuse yourself.
1) Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France
2) R.S.Griffiths, CADAS
3) Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon
4) Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon
5) Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik
6) Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University
7) Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova
8) David Roscoe, Sheffield University
9) Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies
10) R. David Pace, Lyon College
11) Markus Rohner, Griesser AG
12) Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute
Well it would be hard to confirm much with the ones that I checked on your list as they have been dead for almost 10 years. Their theories such as the "steady state theory" for the universe have been proven as being wrong and this has even been accepted by some of these guys in their own works! Theories that were developed 50 years ago and since disproved are hardly work to "prove" that the big bang is false. Scientists develop theories all of the time and then do research to find supporting proof or otherwise - most of the research done by these guys actually supports the big bang by having their theories disproved.
At the moment the big bang theory fits the facts and the evidence.
So until someone comes up with observable, provable data to disprove it, it will remain the best fit. So if you have a better theory feel free to share it or if you have irrefutable facts that prove that the big bang is wrong please share.
Oddly enough, an alternative theory with supporting evidence and verifiable observation is something Ultimator has singularly failed to provide. Case closed on this forum topic I think.
Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. The development of these theories has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. They have never been disproved by anyone.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Why are you so worked up about the BBT anyway?
You sound exactly like the flat-earthers we find out here hiding in China - liberal use of long words and concepts with no idea of the meaning, just copy paste thinking in an attempt to support your own junk ideas.
I would seriously suggest that you return to school and re-take science at around maybe the third grade. And I mean a real school, not one of those Texan or babble belt fiascos.
Steady-state theory? Really? LOL! Those arguments were discredited 50 years ago. I suggest your read about cosmic background radiation.
Not sure whom you found 'dead for almost 10 years' in the list that I provided. These people are all living scientists.
Seeing as you edited out the dead ones I am not surprised!
These were originally on your list;
Thomas Gold, Cornell University
Not sure who else you changed... quite frankly I don't care..
Enjoy your thread.. I'm off to talk with real people who act like adults or even toddlers.. more mature..
You see, Bill, you aren't fooling anyone, but I'm sure you'll keep trying.
Sorry to see you lying. Quit lying and practice truthfulness. Science is actually a search for truth.
I didn't change my post. You made a foolish mistake by (deliberately) messing up one scientist in my list, with one dead guy that you know (all in order to devalue my argument). Now you are frustrated to find that your trick has been detected.
actually bud, you are lying and i'm not trying to insult you. i could because i'm good at it but you have insulted yourself , so why would i. seriously, you should go play and quit making yourself look foolish, even a religious person would disagree with you.
I think I'll go with Hawking, and Kaku instead of a reporter.
Big Bang is the Cosmological religion of the progressive elite. I deserve more because I am more evolved than you - my god - evolution.
Ultimater: You are no reporter (or you are a very bad one) You lie. You edit your responses after someone catches you in a mistake THEN claim you made no mistake. Even if you had a point in the beginning, you have no more credibility. You sound like a troll. If you are, then you got an awful lot of people to jump through your hoops and didn't convince anyone of anything. If you aren't a troll, you are a sad human being who didn't convince anyone of anything, and worse, you don't seem to have a clue HOW to convince anyone of anything, and you subscribe to the "deny everything" school of defending a lie.
Sorry you couldn't find something useful to do with your life.... or congrats on a successful trolling. Either way, I know there is no way anyone will change your mind, and you're certainly not going to change anyone else's mind. Since you started this thread, it's up to the rest of us to leave. Goodnight.
You look quite angry, swordsbane. You previously asked me the names of the scientists who deny the theory of big bang. I have provided the names (there are even more of them). One can guess the cause of your frustration.
Sorry, but I can't bottlefeed.
I never changed any post. These were idiots who didn't read my posts carefully and blindly replied with inane comments. And started complaining an hour later. You are either (any) of their sockpuppets (who is now trying to disrupt this thread with your sentimental gibberish), or you are simply a whiner who can't stand a competition.
by Make Money9 years ago
I'm sure if you listen to this audio file you'll agree that the Big Bang theory has fizzled. http://www.audiosancto.org/auweb/200804 … izzles.mp3-----------------------------------How many academics does it take...
by janesix6 years ago
The Big Bang is a religious concept, not science. It takes faith to believe that it happened. If you believe in the Big Bang, why?
by Ron Hooft6 years ago
I'm interested in your thoughts. Not how. I'm not interested in the idea that a god did it or not. I am interested in your thoughts on why there is something instead of nothing.
by Bill Akers4 years ago
If nothing can only produce nothing, how did our universe start from nothing without God? There are many unanswered questions in the science and astronomy fields. Since these fields can not have God as an answer, they...
by aka-dj2 years ago
A worldwide flood (like described by Noah's flood) is said to be part of many cultures folklore.Creationist proponents belive geological evidence "supports " such an event. Atheists (and others) do not. What...
by Retrohawaii6 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.