Is the Big Bang Running Out of Steam?

[Prometheus]

I'm telling you ancient science is irrelevant.

Clearly, you have little understanding of science. You are telling me, and for some reason I should take your worthless word for it?

Actually, I told the OP to learn what science actually is.

Isn't this intelligent? I am suggesting that you learn what science really is, as you seem so narrow-minded that you clearly do not know.

And here you go again. Jumping in without putting the slightest amount of thought into the matter, thinking you actually have something intelligent to say.

You are showing yourself to be very stupid, aren't you? You tell me that I have put no thought into the matter. What idiocy! Of course, you could never know if this is a true statement. This just shows how shallow and meaningless your comments are. I suspect that people do give thoughts to their statements.

How in the world do you justify claiming fire, earth, air and water are indentical to EM, gravity and the nuclear forces? Claiming they have identical properties is idiotic, and a sure sign you haven't put any thought into it.

Aren't you the stupid one. You clearly have no idea what I am talking about. You, in your foolishness, reject the very idea out of hand. Because you show no ability to think, and no ability to consider that I might have thought, you call the idea idiotic and suggest that I have not thought about it. You are a fool. Now, it is you who is gawking on automatic pilot, giving no thought to the garbage that you are spewing. Clearly, it is you who has given no thought, but responds in an idiotic manner. I would tell you how the properties are related, but you have shown that you are not interested, you just want to act the fool.

After I corrected you on your misuse the word science, you have keep arguing and replying to my posts. So the wasted bandwidth isn't entirely my fault, though I should know better to keep responding to people who will argue about a subject they know nothing about.

After your corrected me? You are the one who misused the term. Clearly and obviously so. Do you think that I care about your foolish corrections? You are a fool. You are a fool because you spout garbage, and then you do the opposite. You have given no thought to my idea, but have rejected it without thought. Do you like it when people reject your ideas without thought? You are clearly a shallow thinker who is very full of himself.

Do you usually find yourself successful when you attempt to bully people out of a conversation with your full of yourself conversation? Does this usually work for you? You think that it shows that you are knowledgeable? You spouted garbage, and I told you so. Your response is to tell me that I am off topic, as though you own the topic.

What have you contributed to the theory of the Big Bang? Have you made some major contributions to the world of science in this context? Or, are you just some full of himself wannabe who pretends to be an expert. You are really a joke, do you know that. And yes, I have given thought to the statement that I just made.

Wait. Revise that. I am willing to completely revise my estimation of you. I offer a truce. Please offer me some insight into the meaningful contributions that you have made in the scientific understanding of the Big Bang. Perhaps once I realize how meaningful and conclusive your personal contributions have been to scientific thought in this area, I will give more deference to the absolute surety of your opinions.

 

[chroot]

Stop it with the personal attacks. Right now.

- Warren

 

[Entropy]

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.

WRONG. The big bang doesn't rely on dark matter or dark energy

The discoveries at the outskirts of the accessible universe strongly question the big bang theory and ask for challenging alternatives. The confusing findings of galaxies when the big bang universe was less than 5% of its age are consistent with my “firework universe” that had lumpy fireworks like beginning, created from discovered 3D-spiral swirls of basic matter that ejected smaller ones from their cores. The one existing and unique “firework universe” has a center, which is like hyper huge atomic nucleus that ejected smaller ones that did the same and so on. In this way the 3D-spiral swirls of basic matter unfolded to smaller scales to create the fabric of reality. We are living on the surface of a gigantic nucleus called Earth, from whose kernel the atomic nuclei that build us were cast away in the moment of the Earth’s creation. Initially the Earth was bright blue star that cooled with the extinction of the source of atomic nuclei in its core. The production of new atoms in the innermost depths of the Earth makes its interior hot and accounts for its volcanic activity and lava upwelling mid ocean ridge.

Three words: "what the hell?" Has this guy ever picked up a science book in his life? Am I reading this wrong or something? "Initially the Earth was bright blue star" what?!

 

[Eh]

Devastating rebutal, Prometheus.

Anyway, it looks like the OP has fled the scene. Is there still anyone here that questions the big bang is a good scientific theory?