Vixianna
Athavulf
Vixianna, TL;DR lol.
ERROR: Could not translate blatant superciliousness to ratiocination.
ASSESSMENT: Human interaction protocol appears to be corrupted.
SYNOPSIS: "Give a damn.exe" Bad command or filename. Try again?
Yes / No _
What the hell is your problem?! When someone tries to explain a deficient to you, you just refuse to listen and plug you ears? Fine but I don't want to hear any more bullshit about the Big Bang not being true, unless you can actually debate using science not opinion and conjecture. I'm serious, i wasn't being arrogant throughout 95-98% of those posts, I even explained it with real life examples instead of math. Grow a pair and step up to the intellectual plate. Kthx.
You have some valid points, but you allow peculiar dogmatic
theories to control your perspectives, or to affix them into a single perspective. Now I want to remind you that neither of us have the qualifications required to even remotely grasp the nature of the universe. It would be preposterous to assume that we can actually comprehend the entire truth. You must have come to realize the fragile validity of media in the face of financial avarice by now? In any case, very few humans actually get to go into outer space. Almost every source of information regarding gov't space programs (and atmospheric alterations) is heavily regulated to the public. Downplaying the nature of their "experiments" is an obvious procedure, but it goes unchecked by the public majority. For example, when asked about projects Argus and Starfish with the HAARP involvement, the speaker used the phrase "
...the scientific experiments that perturbed the natural ionosphere" to refer to the missile-launched mega-ton atomic bombs intentionally detonated within the lower Van Allen Belt, causing it so much disturbance that a large portion was blasted towards the heavens and later formed multiple thinner ionospheres as it settled, permanently altering our planet's nicely balanced system for use with advanced global weapons systems. While public taxes help pay for these atrocities, it is deemed unwise to let the public in to what's really going down, lest they find discomfort in the idea and get in the way of plans. It's totally logical, but... not so wonderful. So, yeah, basically I am saying that no source or institution is 100% faith-worthy.
I do not claim that there was no big bang, I claim that
that theory is absurd and it contradicts the first law of physics. If you want to entertain an absurd theory, who am I to stop you? I just happen to suspect there is a much more tenacious story about the universe that does not require an infinity cap. These perspectives I entertain readily accept what physics calls "nasty infinity", and this notion lends way to all manner of possibilities beyond the walls of our current understanding. While I may not be beyond those walls, I at least recognize that they are indeed walls and that there is more beyond those barriers that can be discovered.
Vixianna
I'm going to have to go slow, tell me if I go too fast.
Condescending.
b***h.
Vixianna
The planet rotates, and now you are on the side facing away from the star. I'd like to take this time to say that night ISN'T caused by the Earth's Shadow. (Lunar Eclipses are though.) It is caused by the Earth's rotation taking it away from the light source. Think of a light bulb in the middle of the room. the side of you not facing the light bulb is dark.
The side of me not facing the light bulb is dark because it's in my shadow. Same with the planet. At night, what is blocking the sun's light? The Earth. Or do you think that a shadow is only the 2D image that gets displayed on distant surfaces? At midnight, the part of the planet you are on at 12:00 is within (or around - further from the equator) the umbra of the Earth's shadow.
Vixianna
The better question is, why is the night dark? Sounds silly, but it's more profound than it seems.
There is no night, really. Imagine someone shines a flashlight in your eyes while outside on a dark "night". This is similar to what is happening to the Earth during the day, were the Sun a flashlight and the Earth your face. Now imagine someone were shining the flashlight at you from a far away mountain top. While you may notice a faint flicker in the distance, the light does not engulf your vision as it would at 3 feet away. Same with the stars.
Vixianna
To be succinct, where does the background radiation come from? The buzz of microwaves that permeates all of space, in between you and me, and entire galaxies. It must come from somewhere, and more importantly we still can't figure out why the night is dark.
can't figure out why night is dark perhaps. I totally get your entire patronizing room full of light bulbs and I get the pennies on a balloon conceptual model of the expanding universe theory. Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before and read enough. First of all, let's say this room full of light bulbs had no walls, no limits, and scant few surfaces to reflect light off of. All the light emitted from all the little now-hovering lights would be free to venture outwards indefinitely or until it found a random object to redirect it partially. These models are cute and all, but if this is all physics boils its fundamental principles down to, then it is not impressive enough to take seriously. A balloon? No. Just no. Get real. Maybe if you can explain the workings of a multidimensional balloon, perhaps.
Vixianna
All matter didn't "explode" into a waiting universal void, the WHOLE universe time, space(the three dimensions), and matter all expanded at once into existence. Do you understand?
It expanded within what? More condescension on your part, totally uncalled for.
Do you understand? Where, when, why, how this dubious big bang event occurred? Can you really tell me? No, this cannot be explained, only presumed and speculated upon. You claim these things like they were your own experiences. C'mon now... The whole thing is
one whole thing. That is the best explanation. Quantum discoveries have revealed that at the base level of reality, non-locality, super-position, time/space indifferentiation, etc are not just feasible, but naturally occurring at that level. If you had to force a model out of me, I would regard lightly the holographic universe concept.
Vixianna
Your understanding of space science is poor.
Condescending. Your ability to reason is poor.
Vixianna
Why are you insulting humans, there really isn't a reason for it, but what do you mean by us seeing bangs?
Humans, due to their actions, deserve to be insulted. I mean that the "Big Bang Theory" is not something that is real. It is a concept that we created with our monkey brain imagination. All we think about is blowing s**t up.
Vixianna
I now have to ask, how you think the universe is in equilibrium.(which is the SAME THING as being static)
Being in equilibrium and being static are not the "SAME THING". In fact, they are "DIFFERENT THINGS". Modern Physics took the term and made it static. I mean the original sense of the word equilibrium from Latin:
æquilibrium, 1608. It was meant to denote balance, a harmonic system. Physics took the word and twisted it to denote some deathly stillness. Static already meant something frozen changeless. The more pure concept of equilibrium I refer to denotes such as nature, ever changing yet somehow impeccably balanced. (Until monkey learned to make bombs)
I also want you to understand that while I claim that people are stupid, I count myself among them. I
know that we don't
really know. You, however, seem to have a big Ego complex going on. However, condescend as you might, I also count you among us stupid people. So, we welcome you as equally stupid entities. You don't
know and neither do we..
300
200
200
