Where did the Big Bang come from.

Well the big bang you may have just heard came from my falling on the floor laughing after reading the posts and links Rei and Dan provided.Oh man I love the Onion, as well as people debunking "code" theories.Thanks peoples.------------------
holmes

Not only is the Big-Bang theory a flawed concept, but the WMAP data analysis also contains flaws that render its results questionable (see my webpages http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm and http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/wmap.htm respectively).

Thomas, I have read parts of your websites. It is odd that they seem to have a number of assertions but not references or any back up. You seem to be suggesting that the leading physicists and cosmologists have it all wrong.Could you take one or or two of your assertions and lay them out here for us. Perhaps supplying some supporting evidence. Your claims are rather extraordinary (if I read them right) and will require more than simple assertions.It may well be that you have the expertise (a PhD in physics I presume) and we will have trouble following everything you say but if you're patient we might be able to get some of it.

quote:

---

It may well be that you have the expertise (a PhD in physics I presume)....

---

Dammit, I just laughed milk through my nose.

I've always wondered why people don't accept anything that clashes with their personal beliefs. For example, crashfrog dismisses the Darwin recanting as an urban legend, but neither he nor stevey can prove their belief. I'm completely convinced that if a scientist discovered proof of God existing, most scientists would denounce him as a fraud, evolutionists on this board would mock him, and very few people would believe him. Simply because this discovery would clash with most peoples personal beliefs.Feel free to flame

I have laid out my assertions in the links I gave above and you are welcome to question them.

Thomas2May I inquire if you have had your work peer reviewed?If so could you tell us where?

From Thomas2's website

quote:

---

Now, in a homogeneous and infinite universe this is not possible as it would mean that the average mass density would permanently decrease, which would violate the continuity equation for mass conservation.

---

Why would the average mass density decreasing violate the continuity equation for mass conservation since no mass is flowing out of any surface?

Nor can anyone prove that Darwin did recant. The preponderance of the evidence is that he did not, and several creationist sources agree. E.g. see Claim CG001 and Did Darwin recant?Do you think it makes any difference whether or not he did? The theory of evolution was first published by Darwin, but its correctness rests on the evidence, not any person's beliefs.

I do have a PhD in theoretical physics and Thomas2 (aka Thomas Smid) is what is technically referred to as a loon.Thomas2, please tell me where you did your astronomy PhD and (as asked by someone else) your peer reviewed publications.Just read his explanation of curved space and how it cannot be. It's a hoot.By the way Thomas2, no PhD of astronomy or physics would call the cosmological redshift a Doppler shift. That is a layman analogy as you should realise if you really have the astronomy PhD. Guess you don't know any GR.What college granted you this PhD without requiring you to know any physics?[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 11-15-2003][This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 11-15-2003]

Welcome EC! I'm glad to have a real physicist here so I don't have to pretend to be one now and then. I happen to agree with you assessment of Thomas2, of course. That's not hard to see.However, don't start off on the wrong foot by calling anyone names.Many of us here enjoy the forum because we learn so much from both the real experts (like yourself) and from having to think about posts by others (both those who agree with us and those who don't). I hope you can take a little time to educate us, not by attacking Thomas2 as in indivdual, but by attacking some of his claims.I can see that there is way too much there to be able to touch on it all. But if you pick one or two bits it is fair to expect him to explain himself. You can help us all by pointing out some of the flaws in his explanation of why space can not be curved. I didn't read that part yet.The other blanket approach might be to point out that he seems short of references or any form of back up for what he says.The other approach we can take is to wait and see if he will answer any questions at all. I did ask one about his problem with the mass continuity.We've all learned that every week or so we get a drive by poster who won't be back. Let's wait and see if Thomas2 is one of those.

I wasn't attacking him as an individual. I'm sure he doesn't kick his dog in real life.But I have run into him in the past on another forum. I actually was surprised to see him here. I haven't heard of him for a year or so.But I shall wait for his response. By the way I have seen him asked these questions before and I don't remember seeing a response.

Ah, I see. You have some history with this guy. If he didn't respond on other less rigorous forums he probably won't here either. He seems to operate about like "The General" but with things that sound like they are more "scientific".

Here is a paper by some people who actually know what they are talking about.It covers the effects of cosmological expansion on the small scale. Thomas2 has some bizarre statements on this topic in his cosmology html page referenced a few posts above.http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803097

It seems you are one of those many scientists who are only able to repeat what they have read and heard elsewhere and then feel threatened in their corporate identity when they encounter views that are different.By the way, are you saying that a galaxy receding with a given velocity won't show any Doppler shift ? You should be aware that this would violate basic physical facts.
This is not to say that I am supporting the interpretation of the galactic redshift as a recession (I mentioned the Doppler interpretation on my website anyway only in a historical context).[This message has been edited by Thomas2, 11-16-2003]