The Origin of the Universe
This Debate is about 'your' theory that you believe determines the origin of the universe.
1. All theories should be cited by *credible* scientists and some type of hypothesis that cites scientific law.
2. If you choose to violate scientific laws in your theory, then you must account for that occurrence.
3. Your theory may be religious or strictly scientific (even a hybrid if you choose).
4. You must be honest to what *assumptions* you impose. i.e. "What I believe..." or "What is thought..."
5. No abusive language.
6. Add to the topic with meaningful paragraphs. Don't just give "I agree" statements.
7. Finally let's see what is out there.
|
No abusive language. Jesus fucking Christ, what the fuck? I've never been so fucking shitted on by a cunt in my fucking life, where the fuck do you get off? I'm gonna just fucking explode. Cunt, tits, pussy, cock shit, fuck, F,F,F,Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccccccccc Side: fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck shit
Define origin of the universe. Do you mean its development, I.E. The Big Bang, or do you mean the first cause (if there ever was one)? Cosmology with Bounce by Flat Space-Time Theory of Gravitation and a New Interpretation Enigmatic Aspects of the Early Universe: Possibility of a 'Pre-Big Bang Phase'! These bits of research would seem to either suggest plainly a Big Bounce scenario, or hint at it. Side: Big Bounce
1
point
1
point
Some interesting problems for cosmologic Big Bang theorists. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ Side: Special Creation
Some interesting problems for cosmologic Big Bang theorists. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/bigbang/ Did you read through the astrophysics section of that research library? How about the astrophysics and cosmology section of any scientific publication (No, Scientific American isn't primary literature). I ask because you seem to have no idea how tied into science Big Bang Theory is. When a news release says that astronomical theories are being changed, it does not mean that Big Bang Theory is being abandoned. It means that we are changing our understanding of theories relating to it. Your second link looks like quackery, and I can say this because any science publication I read on the topic of astronomy, cosmology, and astrophysics regularly shows research utilising Big Bang Theory in its framework or underlying its research. For something so wrong it seems to enjoy wide circulation amongst the qualified experts. Anyway, I'm leaving the site today. Just wanted to tie up this loose end. Side: Big Bounce
|
