Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has Science Erred !

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by John Reyes on January 30, 2001 04:03:02 UTC

Here are my answers in consecutive order to your statements.

1/What do you think then , there was nothing then suddenly a big bang , how could this just occur without a space , where would the matter reside , how could it exist .The red shifts have an alternative explanation as I have explained which is perfectly feasible yet seems to also go against your scientific beliefs and why not , it is simple so why should a red shift be true to laws that can at anytime be eradicated to advance science .
Are you telling me that the big bang has no center , why should matter expand in one direction only , what makes you think that Relativity is void from attack now or in the future .

2/ Anyone can work out that my idea of falling is going to be at odds with your understanding of gravity , and yes I am going to be specific and explain the effect of falling but not just at the moment , what you need to ask science is to be specific on what it means by the curvature of space .Hawkings and Einstein introduce it like a stranger walking through my door yet they do not give a rational explanation , niether of them state how the curvature of space is achieved or what it really represents so please explain how the fusion of space and time is achieved .

3/Well as yet I have not been proven wrong and my theory is far less complex than science has been interpreting and explaining the universe with the scientific rock of gravity that has yet to give a gravitational wave of a hello nature .

4/why then does science portray such a beginning .

5/We are not talking of TV neglecting the big bang issue but the actual concept of a beginning by science , most of us understand it as a big bang , I did mention it as a primeval atom so do not twist things , either way you seem to agree that you cannot account for its existence until the final miliseconds can provide an answer which in turn makes your observational data subject to question .

6/So now your are saying that gravity had nothing to do with the big bang , in my view you are right because gravity does not exist , yet in the view of others how do you explain a big bang without a density , and are you psychic , then what do you know of my interests in reading or what I watch , so far it seems that you already have made your mind up about me and my theories , what I like to know is can you test them to be wrong .
You speak of scala fields and mention spacetime yet cannot explain the fusion of both entities, you say it seems to fix a number of real problems for the big bang cosmology , is that after creation as you recently mentioned , how do you know what I am thinking , are you really psychic.

7/you seem to miss the point why the universe should have a fixed age , can you see the beginning even with HST.

8/Again you seem to miss the point, you cannot dismiss that the overall diameter of the universe is 35 billion years old so its light has not yet reached us , how then can science be sure that it is not bigger .
QUOTE an article in time magazine 2 sept 1991 , the big bang under fire , scientists postulate that the cosmos could be trillions of years old that grew not from gravity but from electricity and magnetism .

9/Well if you seem to think that I am wrong then that is your opinion , it does not make science right to prove a wrong especially when it twists its finding to suit what it has created .

10/ What makes you think that I have a religion , ok I accept a divine intervention so tell me the answer to this how can a watch exist without a watchmaker . Then tell me the state of the world
and how it got into such a state , would the proof of a creator not change things .

11/Now you tell me how a divine architect creating everything from a singularity is more impressive than a large sphere , because the singularity would not have cause to make him rest on the seventh .

12/Of coarse their are more smaller less luminous galaxies together , you forget that each consecutive stage means smaller stars , which means that there would be numerous smaller stars giving a growing structure to the universe , in turn these stars would eject less matter so the galaxies would be smaller and numerous today .

13/If the wave lengths of our galaxies all shift at the same time then it is assumed that they are moving away from us with a red shift , and if they are blue shifted then they are coming towards us , what is it about that you do not understand , did you not know that galaxies are coming towards us , watch out here comes andromeda .

14/ oh excuse me but I did say that they are compact remnants from the last cycle of huge stars and this would make them dark at the north and the south poles because most of the stars surround its equatorial regions, the surrouding matter such as stars would heat this remnant causing jets of matter to eject visible at the north and south poles on occasion but mostly at the equator .

15/See previous answer 12 on galactic distribution .

16/So all evidence as you put it point to blackholes , well so far not in my book , and yes I did know , you though continue on about blackholes being the center of everything in our universe , if that was the case then why do all the galaxies , quasars , Lacertae objects and so on expand as you seem to believe , surely a blackhole is far stronger than the universal constant therefor giving a nail in the board effect upon space preventing it from expanding .

17/see previous answer 12 on smaller galaxies .

18/Yeah thats right there are spiral and barred spirals , if I can explain spiral galaxies did you think that I could not explain barred spirals , well it is plainly obvios that matter would have been ejected at a faster rate causing the bars , as with the spirals then it was slower.
Other galactic shapes mean that the stars expelled the entire shell to create the variations .

19/What, do you think I was intending in writing my book out again , and lets get something straight neutrinos are not consistant with scientific findings, there should be 80 or so billion coming towards earth , have they found more than one a day yet , so that makes your belief of how the sun burns redundant , and yes the idea of the sun burning from the solar atmosphere was thrown out years ago , it was postulated to be a lump of coal at one time , THAT IS NOT THOUGH HOW I PORTRAYED MY THEORY so again you seem to have whizzed through without really considering my theory other than to try to discredit the idea .

20/Bzzt, did you know that the corona is far hotter than the chromosphere of the sun and that science cannot explain this huge difference , would my theory that the sun burns from the outside inwards not answer this or should I send you a copy of my book published two years ago Titled ( A BRIEF SCIENTIFIC SLIP IN TIME ).

21/ Well sunspots on betelgeuse , well it goes to prove my theory all the more that it is not about to swell up and engulf its entire neigbourhood as just recently been discussed by me on the God and science site .

22/No please do not feel sorry for me ! If I was destined to re-write the complete laws of physics then I would be in your position but as I fail to see the need to obtain a physics degree when I disagree then I remain eccentrically insane for it is here that I write the laws of physics , it is here that I understand why people such as yourself seem to think that science is the clock of your hope and understanding and like the blind mice then you scurry up to hear it chime , but you and science fail to notice or accept that the mechanism is wrong .
You and science have no room for other opinions or beliefs , I giving a simple explanation compact into a small area was nothing compared to the full theory yet you without really thinking about it decided to jump in with your theoretical sword , instead of questions you thought only opposing remarks which really is backed by your belief in science and its research and on top of all this you do it with research based on the theory of gravity that is well over 300 years and it still has not been discovered or properly explained by the originators of spacetime curvature as to what this really means or how time is fused with space , until it is explained then its meaning remains a stranger that walked into my home and left again , so have you erred that science has erred .



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins