Did the Big Bang really happen? Scientist disputes universe's origin story

[sgtnos]

My recommendation - you may want to consider starting a discussion on the heliocentric solar system vs. immovable Earth and geocentric universe model. Apparently the Electric Universe Theory is not heliocentric solar system astronomy and rejects gravity so everything will change in astronomy concerning the solar system, like predictions of lunar eclipses (the Sun will pull the Moon away), Galilean moon eclipse events and transits, etc. Keep in mind that Tycho Brahe believed in the geocentric, heliocentric solar system where the planets moved around the Sun, and the Sun and planets traveled around the Earth and the Moon moved around the Earth. The Electric Universe Theory sounds more like Tesla who threw out Newton gravity and Einstein General Relativity which means heliocentric solar system astronomy and measurements are tossed too.

Did not say that. Would like to see my quote saying that. Would like to see something from EU saying that it is earth centric. Stop lying. Saying Einstein and Newton were not correct is not saying observed measurements are incorrect. You have a difficult time understanding that if you are unaware of a variable, your calculations will almost always be off. Something is missing. Gravity exists, but it either doesn't work how they think or there is another force. Tesla was also a genius and Einstein was just a guy that got famous, have proven a lot of his ideas wrong and not everyone agreed with him. Those that went against the grain were basically run off every time.

 

[sgtnos]

My recommendation - you may want to consider starting a discussion on the heliocentric solar system vs. immovable Earth and geocentric universe model. Apparently the Electric Universe Theory is not heliocentric solar system astronomy and rejects gravity so everything will change in astronomy concerning the solar system, like predictions of lunar eclipses (the Sun will pull the Moon away), Galilean moon eclipse events and transits, etc. Keep in mind that Tycho Brahe believed in the geocentric, heliocentric solar system where the planets moved around the Sun, and the Sun and planets traveled around the Earth and the Moon moved around the Earth. The Electric Universe Theory sounds more like Tesla who threw out Newton gravity and Einstein General Relativity which means heliocentric solar system astronomy and measurements are tossed too.

Every prediction for how additional planets should transit, as they discovered them in our solar system, gave a very wide margin of error. They have to continue to come up with different arguments trying to figure out if we have another planet. If those physics were completely correct, it should be easy to get an idea. Given we have reached the level of technology we have and have not even seen something transiting the stars that could be planet 9, I doubt it exists. There are anomalies on every planet and they cannot explain how the planets formed without creating different theories for each, which do not prove gravity collapse formation.

 

[sgtnos]

My recommendation - you may want to consider starting a discussion on the heliocentric solar system vs. immovable Earth and geocentric universe model. Apparently the Electric Universe Theory is not heliocentric solar system astronomy and rejects gravity so everything will change in astronomy concerning the solar system, like predictions of lunar eclipses (the Sun will pull the Moon away), Galilean moon eclipse events and transits, etc. Keep in mind that Tycho Brahe believed in the geocentric, heliocentric solar system where the planets moved around the Sun, and the Sun and planets traveled around the Earth and the Moon moved around the Earth. The Electric Universe Theory sounds more like Tesla who threw out Newton gravity and Einstein General Relativity which means heliocentric solar system astronomy and measurements are tossed too.

Actually, I need to change the way I say my view. I am concerned with explaining what we see, not what happened at the beginning of time. Once you understand what is going on, you can figure out if it is possible to look back in time and see how everything started. In seeking to explain the beginning, based on old theories that came before Einstein, science has erred as he did not have half of the information we have today. We have exponentially progressed technologically, but refuse to update our theories that are disproven in part, acting as if theories that were created with no proof are still otherwise valid. Thought experiments that are taken as being true, just because someone invented an algorithm that produces an answer, are not automatically real because you can reason them.

 

[Truthseeker007]

Flat earth is a argument used by small minds to discredit others, don't be dumb. That can be disproven through one of the jobs I did in the military, LOS communications and knowing (having dealt with it in different ways) the 24 mile issue with the curvature of the earth we had to deal with. Gravity does not work the way they say it does, it exists, but obviously does not function as they theorize. I would suggest that it is some force that is weaker than elementary particle bonds and that we are missing something important. They did not even believe that metallic hydrogen could exist a few years ago, but they suddenly jumped on it as soon as they could not explain things. That is what I am talking about.

Precisely! Great points!

 

[shayne.oneill]

Did the Big Bang really happen? Scientist disputes universe's origin story

Is it time to let go of the Big Bang hypothesis?

www.inverse.com

Eric Lerner is a ridiculous crank, and shame on Inverse for giving him an article. Plus he seems top be an advocate of "Electric Universe" gibberish, so you can safely write his writing off without having to even read it, because we already know he doesn't understand the topic.

Read this better article: http://www.evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

 

[sunstance]

I can say 100 per cent yes, however it real deal was a fizz fizz bang due to the motion that was being generated.
there really was two fizzes first like fizz fizz then bang. like one full moment of two disntinct fizzes.
and further I would say that this is one of many bangs throughout the external world of our universe. which has been explained as the bubble that was realised about our universe(shape) I have maps do you want to see them soon as I work out how to upload pictures it will be done. then I hope you can comment on the map

 

[COLGeek]

I can say 100 per cent yes, however it real deal was a fizz fizz bang due to the motion that was being generated.
there really was two fizzes first like fizz fizz then bang. like one full moment of two disntinct fizzes.
and further I would say that this is one of many bangs throughout the external world of our universe. which has been explained as the bubble that was realised about our universe(shape) I have maps do you want to see them soon as I work out how to upload pictures it will be done. then I hope you can comment on the map

Upload images to a site like imgur and then post the links here.