Peculiar velocities Vs. Big Bang

[questfortruth]

Big Bang is the corner stoun of General Darwinian Evolution: before the Biological Evolution could start, the Cosmology Evolution "must" have taken place. Look: the proof of Atheism (Methodological Naturalism) must exclude God at all times of the History of Time. But the Big Bang is not the explanation of anything, because this “explanation” comes in pack with unsolved problems:

"No Reality"

“Cosmology in Crises”

"Armenia telescope observations disproved Big Bang"

"What is wrong with Big Bang?"

"5 major problems with Big Bang"

Peculiar Velocity. When we observe very distant galaxies however, the velocity due to the expansion of spacetime, is much greater than these locally induced motions. The peculiar velocity of a galaxy is its velocity relative to the motion due to the isotropic expansion of the universe as described by the Hubble Law.

But Peculiar Velocities are model-dependent and metric-dependent (due to the relativity of motion). There is interesting model of mine, where the Peculiar Velocities count for all effects of “expansion of space”. Thus, in this model, there is no expansion of space. Such model requires specially chosen Dark Energy. But latter is X-factor in Science, thus, can be freely chosen for any model to describe the Nature.

Such model can not be debunked, because the distance between the galaxies do actually grow, and that can be interpreted by two research methods: Peculiar Velocities or Space Expansion. One can not make the difference.

The ultra high energy rays – due to Hawking Radiation from the start and the end of time: Alpha and Omega surfaces. The Cosmic Microwave Background can be solved by two alternatives: it is from Hawking Radiation, or it is absent:

P. Herouni, Measured Parameters of Large Antenna of ROT-54/2.6 Tell about Absence of Big Bang Journal of Astrophysics: Reports. -- National Academy of Sciences of Armenia 2007, v. 107, no. 1. 73--78; P.M. Robitaille, The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4 K Reference Targets, Progr. Phys. 2010, v. 6, no. 3, 11--18; P.M. Robitaille, Water, Hydrogen Bonding and the Microwave Background, Progr. Phys. 2009, v. 5, no. 2,
L5--L8; P.M. Robitaille, COBE: A Radiological Analysis, Progr. Phys. 2009, v. 5, no. 4, 17--42; P.M. Robitaille, WMAP: A Radiological Analysis, Progr. Phys. 2007, v. 3, no. 1, 3--18. Popular story in ``The Herouni Antenna – The Death of Big Bang''
The Herouni Antenna - The Death of the Big Bang!

He:
“Sure, all the scientists and mathematicians are wrong, you with your YouTube clips and garbled semi-scientific terminology are correct.”

Me:
It is simply ridiculous! Nobody can debunk a paper by simply:

1. trolling it and insulting the author,
2. Presumption of Guilt,
3. Burden of proof (there is no talks of burdens for a truth-seeker),
4. appeal to authority (appeal to impact factor of the paper journal), because it is the Fallacy of Authority.

CONCLUSION:

The red-shift of galaxies can be attributed to the fly away speed from Earth. Then the Earth is truly the symmetric center of Universe. That speed is not caused by expansion of spacetime, but by inertia law: very first law of Newton mechanics. Then the following math is true:
scientific word for Biblical Firmament in Genesis 1:7. Universe in Nutshell

Now, a human is fundamentally different from all animals, because no animal, no single one organism, is going to movies, to art galleries, is going to Church. Thus, we are special, we are not product of Nature: we deserve special place in Cosmos: the center of the Universe.
"Princes Of The Universe"
Queen - Princes Of The Universe (Lyrics)

 

[Audie]

I wonder if this is the "scientism"
we keep hearing about.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I wonder if this is the "scientism"
we keep hearing about.

Scientism is where the assumptions of naturalism are taken by faith and zealously

Ya there's a lot of that going around

The red shifts of quarks may be intrinsic to what they are.... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar as Freud said... and sometimes an astronomical object is red jest because it is

Carmellian relativity may even exclude the need for dark matter and better explain the spin of galaxies ... well... there goes like the vast majority of the theoretical universe in a poof!

 

[shunyadragon]

Big Bang is the corner stoun of General Darwinian Evolution: before the Biological Evolution could start, the Cosmology Evolution "must" have taken place. Look: the proof of Atheism (Methodological Naturalism) must exclude God at all times of the History of Time. But the Big Bang is not the explanation of anything, because this “explanation” comes in pack with unsolved problems:

Yes, The origin of the universe had to take place before our galaxy, solar system, planet, and life, but . . . the various theories of the origin of the universe have nothing whatsoever to do with the science of evolution.

CONCLUSION:

The red-shift of galaxies can be attributed to the fly away speed from Earth. Then the Earth is truly the symmetric center of Universe. That speed is not caused by expansion of spacetime, but by inertia law: very first law of Newton mechanics. Then the following math is true:
scientific word for Biblical Firmament in Genesis 1:7. Universe in Nutshell

The ancient mythology on the origins of the universe and the history of life and humanity.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Yes, The origin of the universe had to take place before our galaxy, solar system, planet, and life, but . . . the various theories of the origin of the universe have nothing whatsoever to do with the science of evolution.



The ancient mythology on the origins of the universe and the history of life and humanity.

Actually evolution comes in many flavors

nothing to something evolution of galaxies, stars, planets, the moon, geology, one celled organisms, asexual to sexual, exomorphic to endomorphic, egg layers to non egg layers, ape to man

all fraught will religious hidden assumptions taken by less of faith

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually evolution comes in many flavors.

Unless one is specific and using correct scientific terminology; 'evolution is NOT in many flavors. The original thread referred to eDarwinian evolution

nothing to something evolution of galaxies, stars, planets, the moon, geology, one celled organisms, asexual to sexual, exomorphic to endomorphic, egg layers to non egg layers, ape to man.

First, hookus bogus; humans did not come from ape. The scientific view is NOT '(philosophical) nothing to something,' and you need to clarify your statements more clearly in terms of science. The formation of galaxies, solar systems, planets, moons, is the subject of physics and cosmology and NOT geology. Geology deals with the physical history of the earth. The science of abiogenesis concerns the inorganic evolution to organic life. The science of evolution deals specifically with the evolution of life.

. . . all fraught will religious hidden assumptions taken by less of faith

Not coherent without clarification.

 

[ecco]

Big Bang is the corner stoun of General Darwinian Evolution: ...

Uggh: Magwab, what make big flash during much rain?
Magwab: Magwab don't know.
Uggh: What kind of leader "don't know"?
Magwab: What I meant to say was GodDidIt.
Uggh: OK That better.

 

[ecco]

Big Bang is the corner stoun of General Darwinian Evolution: before the Biological Evolution could start, the Cosmology Evolution "must" have taken place. Look: the proof of Atheism (Methodological Naturalism) must exclude God at all times of the History of Time. But the Big Bang is not the explanation of anything, because this “explanation” comes in pack with unsolved problems...

Atheism doesn't need explanations for the origins of anything. There were probably atheists when many people were worshipping Zeus, Ra, or Apistotoke.

Atheists have no problem accepting "I don't know" or "Mankind doesn't yet know". It is only the insecure that need to make up silly stories.

People like you have been around forever. When it was found that planetary orbits were ellipses, you criticized science for believing that orbits were circular. When it became evident that the universe was expanding, you ridiculed science for believing the universe was static. You snarkily asserted that, since science is so often wrong, science is useless and the only Truth is in scripture.

Very few people today believe the long-held "Biblical Truth" that the universe is 6000 years old. Little by little, more people are realizing that Holy Scripture, regardless of religion, is nothing more than myths. Myths about the universe, myths about nature and myths about the very gods that supposedly made it all happen.

 

[Audie]

Scientism is where the assumptions of naturalism are taken by faith and zealously

Ya there's a lot of that going around

The red shifts of quarks may be intrinsic to what they are.... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar as Freud said... and sometimes an astronomical object is red jest because it is

Carmellian relativity may even exclude the need for dark matter and better explain the spin of galaxies ... well... there goes like the vast majority of the theoretical universe in a poof!

And I think that gish gush of woo woo is scientism.
Ie, A person wholly unschooled in the art takes what
they think is science and grotesquely misapples it.

You got the faith and zealotry right.

People with facts dont need "faith" for that part
of their thinking.

 

[whirlingmerc]

And I think that gish gush of woo woo is scientism.
Ie, A person wholly unschooled in the art takes what
they think is science and grotesquely misapples it.

You got the faith and zealotry right.

People with facts dont need "faith" for that part
of their thinking.

You might say that regarding the assumptions of naturalism taken by faith axiomatically

 

[Audie]

You might say that regarding the assumptions of naturalism taken by faith axiomatically

No, because for one I dont use same words for such
different things, and for that matter, I find tu qupque
to bea shabby game; I'd recommend you avoid it
in the future, for your teputation's sake if noneother.

As for these axioms you speak of, I dont think you
or anyone else knows what you are talking about

I doubt you will ever understand no matter how
many times you hear it, but this "faith" stuff is
your problem, and there
are a fortunate few who dont share this
cognitive deficiency.

Quit ttying to tar others with your brush, it does
nothing to make your position look better nor
diminlsh rhat of others you dont understand-or,
as in this case, invent that you can be
somehow superior in your 100% unevidenced
blind faith position.