Discussion:
Why the Big Bang Theory is crap and why the universe is NOT 13.8 byo
Add Reply
b***@m.nu
2018-09-13 09:02:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.


Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe? Lets
say that the universe first started expanding 13.8 bya and has not
stopped expanding since. The galaxies at the center or at least near
the center at that time will be billions of light years from the
actual center any gas, dust and/or any matter would have long since
expanded billions of years from that center. So lets say that there
was a black hole there now from the large amount of matter that was
released there in the center. It would be so large and so bright you
would think someone would have seen it by now. If not that then there
should be about at least a 13 billion LY gap between that galaxy and
any the nearest galaxies which would be noticeable even with out
technology. Lets say there is a 10 by gap then we could not see the
center because it would be too far but then the age of the universe
would have to be altered because then where did that extra space come
from? ? All this would perhaps be correct if a galaxy of stars formed
around the initial black hole immediately after the black hole
formed. But matter did not form right away and it took even longer for
stars and other stellar thing to form so the very large black hole
would possibly be a naked singularity. There would be no way to detect
this visually but it would be giving off a "very loud" detectable
signature that possibly could be detected.

These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense

These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-13 14:44:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.
Project, much?
Post by b***@m.nu
Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe? Lets
Is there even a centre of the universe, as you understand it?

Given that it is expanding in all directions around us, you might
think _we_ are the centre. But spacetime itself is expanding, and
every other galaxy would be the centre from their perspective - unless
our galaxy is somehow different, and there is no reason to think so.

You need to think in terms of relativity and different frames of
reference.
Post by b***@m.nu
say that the universe first started expanding 13.8 bya and has not
stopped expanding since. The galaxies at the center or at least near
the center at that time will be billions of light years from the
actual center any gas, dust and/or any matter would have long since
expanded billions of years from that center. So lets say that there
was a black hole there now from the large amount of matter that was
So let's show that there actually _is_, first.

But it would seem that every point is the "centre" of the universe. We
are inside the big bang which is still going on, not outside it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_center_of_the_Universe
Post by b***@m.nu
released there in the center. It would be so large and so bright you
A black hole so large and so bright?
Post by b***@m.nu
would think someone would have seen it by now. If not that then there
should be about at least a 13 billion LY gap between that galaxy and
any the nearest galaxies which would be noticeable even with out
technology. Lets say there is a 10 by gap then we could not see the
center because it would be too far but then the age of the universe
would have to be altered because then where did that extra space come
from? ? All this would perhaps be correct if a galaxy of stars formed
around the initial black hole immediately after the black hole
Eh?
Post by b***@m.nu
formed. But matter did not form right away and it took even longer for
stars and other stellar thing to form so the very large black hole
would possibly be a naked singularity. There would be no way to detect
this visually but it would be giving off a "very loud" detectable
signature that possibly could be detected.
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense
This from someone who thinks a black hole can be large and bright.
Post by b***@m.nu
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense.
Is it?
b***@m.nu
2018-09-13 16:34:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:44:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.
Project, much?
Post by b***@m.nu
Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe? Lets
Is there even a centre of the universe, as you understand it?
Given that it is expanding in all directions around us, you might
think _we_ are the centre. But spacetime itself is expanding, and
every other galaxy would be the centre from their perspective - unless
our galaxy is somehow different, and there is no reason to think so.
but it is not expanding in all directions around us.... the universe
is expanding in front of us and we are expanding to those behind us.
there is a difference.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to think in terms of relativity and different frames of
reference.
Post by b***@m.nu
say that the universe first started expanding 13.8 bya and has not
stopped expanding since. The galaxies at the center or at least near
the center at that time will be billions of light years from the
actual center any gas, dust and/or any matter would have long since
expanded billions of years from that center. So lets say that there
was a black hole there now from the large amount of matter that was
So let's show that there actually _is_, first.
But it would seem that every point is the "centre" of the universe. We
are inside the big bang which is still going on, not outside it.
when I say center I don't mean a pinpoint area that is the center....
I am talking about at least a 13 bly empty space.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_center_of_the_Universe
Post by b***@m.nu
released there in the center. It would be so large and so bright you
A black hole so large and so bright?
I did not mean bright as in the visible light spectrum
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
would think someone would have seen it by now. If not that then there
should be about at least a 13 billion LY gap between that galaxy and
any the nearest galaxies which would be noticeable even with
*our
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
technology. Lets say there is a 10
*bly gap then we could not see the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
center because it would be too far but then the age of the universe
would have to be altered because then where did that extra space come
from? ? All this would perhaps be correct if a galaxy of stars formed
around the initial black hole immediately after the black hole
Eh?
Post by b***@m.nu
formed. But matter did not form right away and it took even longer for
stars and other stellar thing to form so the very large black hole
would possibly be a naked singularity. There would be no way to detect
this visually but it would be giving off a "very loud" detectable
signature that possibly could be detected.
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense
This from someone who thinks a black hole can be large and bright.
You are thinking visible light.... A naked singularity would be giving
off hawking radiation which is said to have been observed before....

If the singularity is not a naked one and has gas and various other
matters then it would emit light on the entire EM spectrum.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense.
Is it?
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-13 16:49:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:44:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.
Project, much?
Post by b***@m.nu
Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe? Lets
Is there even a centre of the universe, as you understand it?
Given that it is expanding in all directions around us, you might
think _we_ are the centre. But spacetime itself is expanding, and
every other galaxy would be the centre from their perspective - unless
our galaxy is somehow different, and there is no reason to think so.
but it is not expanding in all directions around us.... the universe
is expanding in front of us and we are expanding to those behind us.
there is a difference.
You just made that up, didn't you?
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to think in terms of relativity and different frames of
reference.
Post by b***@m.nu
say that the universe first started expanding 13.8 bya and has not
stopped expanding since. The galaxies at the center or at least near
the center at that time will be billions of light years from the
actual center any gas, dust and/or any matter would have long since
expanded billions of years from that center. So lets say that there
was a black hole there now from the large amount of matter that was
So let's show that there actually _is_, first.
Well?
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it would seem that every point is the "centre" of the universe. We
are inside the big bang which is still going on, not outside it.
when I say center I don't mean a pinpoint area that is the center....
I am talking about at least a 13 bly empty space.
Then say so.
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_center_of_the_Universe
Post by b***@m.nu
released there in the center. It would be so large and so bright you
A black hole so large and so bright?
I did not mean bright as in the visible light spectrum
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
would think someone would have seen it by now. If not that then there
should be about at least a 13 billion LY gap between that galaxy and
any the nearest galaxies which would be noticeable even with
*our
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
technology. Lets say there is a 10
*bly gap then we could not see the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
center because it would be too far but then the age of the universe
would have to be altered because then where did that extra space come
from? ? All this would perhaps be correct if a galaxy of stars formed
around the initial black hole immediately after the black hole
What "initial black hole"?
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Eh?
Post by b***@m.nu
formed. But matter did not form right away and it took even longer for
stars and other stellar thing to form so the very large black hole
would possibly be a naked singularity. There would be no way to detect
this visually but it would be giving off a "very loud" detectable
signature that possibly could be detected.
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense
This from someone who thinks a black hole can be large and bright.
You are thinking visible light.... A naked singularity would be giving
off hawking radiation which is said to have been observed before....
Except that that is what you said, even if you meant something else.
Post by b***@m.nu
If the singularity is not a naked one and has gas and various other
matters then it would emit light on the entire EM spectrum.
The singularity which you called a black hole. Yeah, right.
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense.
Is it?
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-14 08:10:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:44:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.
Project, much?
Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe? Lets
Is there even a centre of the universe, as you understand it?
Given that it is expanding in all directions around us, you might
think _we_ are the centre. But spacetime itself is expanding, and
every other galaxy would be the centre from their perspective - unless
our galaxy is somehow different, and there is no reason to think so.
but it is not expanding in all directions around us.... the universe
is expanding in front of us and we are expanding to those behind us.
there is a difference.
You just made that up, didn't you?
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to think in terms of relativity and different frames of
reference.
say that the universe first started expanding 13.8 bya and has not
stopped expanding since. The galaxies at the center or at least near
the center at that time will be billions of light years from the
actual center any gas, dust and/or any matter would have long since
expanded billions of years from that center. So lets say that there
was a black hole there now from the large amount of matter that was
So let's show that there actually _is_, first.
Well?
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it would seem that every point is the "centre" of the universe. We
are inside the big bang which is still going on, not outside it.
when I say center I don't mean a pinpoint area that is the center....
I am talking about at least a 13 bly empty space.
Then say so.
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_center_of_the_Universe
released there in the center. It would be so large and so bright you
A black hole so large and so bright?
I did not mean bright as in the visible light spectrum
Post by Christopher A. Lee
would think someone would have seen it by now. If not that then there
should be about at least a 13 billion LY gap between that galaxy and
any the nearest galaxies which would be noticeable even with
*our
Post by Christopher A. Lee
technology. Lets say there is a 10
*bly gap then we could not see the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
center because it would be too far but then the age of the universe
would have to be altered because then where did that extra space come
from? ? All this would perhaps be correct if a galaxy of stars formed
around the initial black hole immediately after the black hole
What "initial black hole"?
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Eh?
formed. But matter did not form right away and it took even longer for
stars and other stellar thing to form so the very large black hole
would possibly be a naked singularity. There would be no way to detect
this visually but it would be giving off a "very loud" detectable
signature that possibly could be detected.
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense
This from someone who thinks a black hole can be large and bright.
You are thinking visible light.... A naked singularity would be giving
off hawking radiation which is said to have been observed before....
Except that that is what you said, even if you meant something else.
Post by b***@m.nu
If the singularity is not a naked one and has gas and various other
matters then it would emit light on the entire EM spectrum.
The singularity which you called a black hole. Yeah, right.
Both are theories about how the Big Bang started.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense.
Is it?
Watch out! Ya know they never mean anything when they say common sense.
(I learned that here the hard way.)
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-14 08:55:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:44:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.
He's talking like a creationists who calls Nobel-prize-winning
researchers idiots, as well anybody who accepts their peer-reviewed
work.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Project, much?
Post by b***@m.nu
Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe? Lets
Is there even a centre of the universe, as you understand it?
Hint: no.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Given that it is expanding in all directions around us, you might
think _we_ are the centre. But spacetime itself is expanding, and
every other galaxy would be the centre from their perspective - unless
our galaxy is somehow different, and there is no reason to think so.
but it is not expanding in all directions around us.... the universe
is expanding in front of us and we are expanding to those behind us.
there is a difference.
If it were "expanding behind us", the background radiation would be in
that direction.

He needs to give cites, to show that he is not pontificating.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You just made that up, didn't you?
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to think in terms of relativity and different frames of
reference.
Post by b***@m.nu
say that the universe first started expanding 13.8 bya and has not
stopped expanding since. The galaxies at the center or at least near
the center at that time will be billions of light years from the
actual center any gas, dust and/or any matter would have long since
expanded billions of years from that center. So lets say that there
was a black hole there now from the large amount of matter that was
So let's show that there actually _is_, first.
Well?
He still hasn't shown that there is actually a centre, just asserted
it.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it would seem that every point is the "centre" of the universe. We
are inside the big bang which is still going on, not outside it.
when I say center I don't mean a pinpoint area that is the center....
I am talking about at least a 13 bly empty space.
Then say so.
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_center_of_the_Universe
Post by b***@m.nu
released there in the center. It would be so large and so bright you
A black hole so large and so bright?
I did not mean bright as in the visible light spectrum
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
would think someone would have seen it by now. If not that then there
should be about at least a 13 billion LY gap between that galaxy and
any the nearest galaxies which would be noticeable even with
*our
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
technology. Lets say there is a 10
*bly gap then we could not see the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
center because it would be too far but then the age of the universe
would have to be altered because then where did that extra space come
from? ? All this would perhaps be correct if a galaxy of stars formed
around the initial black hole immediately after the black hole
What "initial black hole"?
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Eh?
Post by b***@m.nu
formed. But matter did not form right away and it took even longer for
stars and other stellar thing to form so the very large black hole
would possibly be a naked singularity. There would be no way to detect
this visually but it would be giving off a "very loud" detectable
signature that possibly could be detected.
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense
This from someone who thinks a black hole can be large and bright.
You are thinking visible light.... A naked singularity would be giving
off hawking radiation which is said to have been observed before....
Except that that is what you said, even if you meant something else.
Post by b***@m.nu
If the singularity is not a naked one and has gas and various other
matters then it would emit light on the entire EM spectrum.
Then it's not a singularity.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The singularity which you called a black hole. Yeah, right.
Both are theories about how the Big Bang started.
I would like to see a scientific publication which gives Bill's
version, including a centre of the universe..

He needs to explain why scientific consensus is wrong, instead of just
saying it is stupid.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense.
Is it?
Watch out! Ya know they never mean anything when they say common sense.
(I learned that here the hard way.)
Like a creationist's "common sense" that the universe was designed.
duke
2018-09-13 21:22:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:44:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.
Project, much?
Post by b***@m.nu
Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe? Lets
Is there even a centre of the universe, as you understand it?
Given that it is expanding in all directions around us, you might
think _we_ are the centre. But spacetime itself is expanding, and
every other galaxy would be the centre from their perspective - unless
our galaxy is somehow different, and there is no reason to think so.
but it is not expanding in all directions around us.... the universe
is expanding in front of us and we are expanding to those behind us.
there is a difference.
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem as going in
the opposite direction.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
StanFast
2018-09-13 21:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem as going in
the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.

Explain why the universe is flat next
b***@m.nu
2018-09-14 02:08:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem as going in
the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
except it is duke and of course it makes no fucking sense whatsoever
StanFast
2018-09-14 12:51:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem as going in
the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
except it is duke and of course it makes no fucking sense whatsoever
who is a sock puppet of someone who got too drunk from cough syrup too many times and is still dizzy
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-14 20:52:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by StanFast
who is a sock puppet of someone who got too drunk from cough syrup too many times and is still dizzy
_________________

Thanks for admitting you are still dizzy.
StanFast
2018-09-15 00:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by StanFast
who is a sock puppet of someone who got too drunk from cough syrup too many times and is still dizzy
_________________
Thanks for admitting you are still dizzy.
you are not doing it properly
Smiler
2018-09-15 00:20:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by StanFast
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem
as going in the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
except it is duke and of course it makes no fucking sense whatsoever
who is a sock puppet of someone who got too drunk from cough syrup too
many times and is still dizzy
Yet another paranoid episode from the convicted criminal Yost.
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
StanFast
2018-09-15 00:29:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by StanFast
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem
as going in the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
except it is duke and of course it makes no fucking sense whatsoever
who is a sock puppet of someone who got too drunk from cough syrup too
many times and is still dizzy
Yet another paranoid episode from the convicted criminal Yost.
You don't think duke is a sockpuppet?
Smiler
2018-09-17 04:15:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by StanFast
Post by Smiler
Post by StanFast
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it
seem as going in the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
except it is duke and of course it makes no fucking sense whatsoever
who is a sock puppet of someone who got too drunk from cough syrup
too many times and is still dizzy
Yet another paranoid episode from the convicted criminal Yost.
You don't think duke is a sockpuppet?
Nope. He's been here 20+ years. Only a paranoid convicted criminal would
think he was a sock puppet.
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
duke
2018-09-14 20:14:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem as going in
the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
except it is duke and of course it makes no fucking sense whatsoever
Red, red, red riding hooker. Heeheehee.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-14 20:55:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
except it is duke and of course it makes no fucking sense whatsoever
Red, red, red riding hooker. Heeheehee.
- hide quoted text -

the dukester, American-Idiot

__________________

Thanks again for proving you make no sense.

HAHAHAHAHA
duke
2018-09-15 19:20:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:55:41 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by b***@m.nu
except it is duke and of course it makes no fucking sense whatsoever
Red, red, red riding hooker. Heeheehee.
- hide quoted text -
the dukester, American-Idiot
__________________
Thanks again for proving you make no sense.
HAHAHAHAHA
Haahaahaa. And you're singing about red riding hookers. Heeheehee.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
duke
2018-09-14 20:14:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem as going in
the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
The universe isn't flat, but the red shift explains the expansion.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
JWS
2018-09-14 20:40:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem as going in
the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
The universe isn't flat, but the red shift explains the expansion.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
The universe may or may not be flat. We don't know yet.
The red shift is evidence of the expansion. By itself,
it does not explain it.
StanFast
2018-09-15 00:09:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JWS
Post by duke
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem as going in
the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
The universe isn't flat, but the red shift explains the expansion.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
The universe may or may not be flat. We don't know yet.
The red shift is evidence of the expansion. By itself,
it does not explain it.
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/april-2015/our-flat-universe?email_issue=725
b***@m.nu
2018-09-15 02:52:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JWS
Post by duke
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem as going in
the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
The universe isn't flat, but the red shift explains the expansion.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
The universe may or may not be flat. We don't know yet.
The red shift is evidence of the expansion. By itself,
it does not explain it.
It is duke and it is a fucking fat moron. Yes the universe is flat, or
at least from what humans can tell it is flat. Duke is an incredible
moron that has no fucking clue what the hell it is saying at any given
time. It is more akin to a mental patient just scribbling on the
walls.
duke
2018-09-15 19:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by JWS
Post by duke
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem as going in
the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
The universe isn't flat, but the red shift explains the expansion.
The universe may or may not be flat. We don't know yet.
The red shift is evidence of the expansion. By itself,
it does not explain it.
It is duke and it is a fucking fat moron. Yes the universe is flat, or
at least from what humans can tell it is flat.
Duke is an incredible
moron that has no fucking clue what the hell it is saying at any given
time. It is more akin to a mental patient just scribbling on the
walls.
Well, now you get to explain why it's flat. Remember, "from what humans can
tell" is not given.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
duke
2018-09-15 19:21:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JWS
Post by duke
Post by StanFast
Post by duke
No, that which is "behind us" is falling further back making it seem as going in
the opposite direction.
Incredible moment of clarity you have there, ace.
Explain why the universe is flat next
The universe isn't flat, but the red shift explains the expansion.
The universe may or may not be flat. We don't know yet.
The red shift is evidence of the expansion. By itself,
it does not explain it.
But it's red shifted front and back.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-14 07:56:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:44:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.
Project, much?
Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe? Lets
Is there even a centre of the universe, as you understand it?
Given that it is expanding in all directions around us, you might
think _we_ are the centre. But spacetime itself is expanding, and
every other galaxy would be the centre from their perspective - unless
our galaxy is somehow different, and there is no reason to think so.
but it is not expanding in all directions around us.... the universe
is expanding in front of us and we are expanding to those behind us.
there is a difference.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to think in terms of relativity and different frames of
reference.
say that the universe first started expanding 13.8 bya and has not
stopped expanding since. The galaxies at the center or at least near
the center at that time will be billions of light years from the
actual center any gas, dust and/or any matter would have long since
expanded billions of years from that center. So lets say that there
was a black hole there now from the large amount of matter that was
So let's show that there actually _is_, first.
But it would seem that every point is the "centre" of the universe. We
are inside the big bang which is still going on, not outside it.
when I say center I don't mean a pinpoint area that is the center....
I am talking about at least a 13 bly empty space.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_center_of_the_Universe
released there in the center. It would be so large and so bright you
A black hole so large and so bright?
I did not mean bright as in the visible light spectrum
Post by Christopher A. Lee
would think someone would have seen it by now. If not that then there
should be about at least a 13 billion LY gap between that galaxy and
any the nearest galaxies which would be noticeable even with
*our
Post by Christopher A. Lee
technology. Lets say there is a 10
*bly gap then we could not see the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
center because it would be too far but then the age of the universe
would have to be altered because then where did that extra space come
from? ? All this would perhaps be correct if a galaxy of stars formed
around the initial black hole immediately after the black hole
Eh?
formed. But matter did not form right away and it took even longer for
stars and other stellar thing to form so the very large black hole
would possibly be a naked singularity. There would be no way to detect
this visually but it would be giving off a "very loud" detectable
signature that possibly could be detected.
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense
This from someone who thinks a black hole can be large and bright.
You are thinking visible light.... A naked singularity would be giving
off hawking radiation which is said to have been observed before....
If the singularity is not a naked one and has gas and various other
matters then it would emit light on the entire EM spectrum.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense.
Is it?
Bil thinks the Universe a straight line in front and behind us with us in the center. Sheesh!
StanFast
2018-09-14 12:53:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:44:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is it?
Bil thinks the Universe a straight line in front and behind us with us in the center. Sheesh!
strawman.
b***@m.nu
2018-09-15 02:59:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:44:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.
Project, much?
Post by b***@m.nu
Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe? Lets
Is there even a centre of the universe, as you understand it?
Given that it is expanding in all directions around us, you might
think _we_ are the centre. But spacetime itself is expanding, and
every other galaxy would be the centre from their perspective - unless
our galaxy is somehow different, and there is no reason to think so.
but it is not expanding in all directions around us.... the universe
is expanding in front of us and we are expanding to those behind us.
there is a difference.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to think in terms of relativity and different frames of
reference.
Post by b***@m.nu
say that the universe first started expanding 13.8 bya and has not
stopped expanding since. The galaxies at the center or at least near
the center at that time will be billions of light years from the
actual center any gas, dust and/or any matter would have long since
expanded billions of years from that center. So lets say that there
was a black hole there now from the large amount of matter that was
So let's show that there actually _is_, first.
But it would seem that every point is the "centre" of the universe. We
are inside the big bang which is still going on, not outside it.
when I say center I don't mean a pinpoint area that is the center....
I am talking about at least a 13 bly empty space.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_center_of_the_Universe
Post by b***@m.nu
released there in the center. It would be so large and so bright you
A black hole so large and so bright?
I did not mean bright as in the visible light spectrum
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
would think someone would have seen it by now. If not that then there
should be about at least a 13 billion LY gap between that galaxy and
any the nearest galaxies which would be noticeable even with
*our
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
technology. Lets say there is a 10
*bly gap then we could not see the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
center because it would be too far but then the age of the universe
would have to be altered because then where did that extra space come
from? ? All this would perhaps be correct if a galaxy of stars formed
around the initial black hole immediately after the black hole
Eh?
Post by b***@m.nu
formed. But matter did not form right away and it took even longer for
stars and other stellar thing to form so the very large black hole
would possibly be a naked singularity. There would be no way to detect
this visually but it would be giving off a "very loud" detectable
signature that possibly could be detected.
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense
This from someone who thinks a black hole can be large and bright.
You are thinking visible light.... A naked singularity would be giving
off hawking radiation which is said to have been observed before....
If the singularity is not a naked one and has gas and various other
matters then it would emit light on the entire EM spectrum.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense.
Is it?
Bil thinks the Universe a straight line in front and behind us with us in the center. Sheesh!
Wow who is making shit up now? I have never said any such thing...If
anything we are near the center of the expanding band. The center (as
far as where it all started) would be where the 13+ BLY empty stretch
of space is.

Now everything I said depends on one thing really. That is that not
long after the event now recorded as the big bang happened that the
universe has cooled to a point where matter actually stopped forming.
This is why there would be the 13+ BLY gap, or if matter kept forming
for lets say 3 by's then there would be a 10 BLY gap
JWS
2018-09-13 16:42:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy,
Guess what? Earth is in the universe. Our solar system is in the
universe. Our galaxy is in the universe. You're a genius.
Yap Honghor
2018-09-14 02:21:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JWS
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy,
Guess what? Earth is in the universe. Our solar system is in the
universe. Our galaxy is in the universe. You're a genius.
Yes, but no one can have an bird's eye point of view to say earth or our solar system is the center of the universe!

Assuming a big circle is the universe and expanding, any point inside the circle will see other points around it to be expanding.....
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-14 07:57:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JWS
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy,
Guess what? Earth is in the universe. Our solar system is in the
universe. Our galaxy is in the universe. You're a genius.
Ha!
Christopher A. Lee
2018-09-14 09:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JWS
Post by b***@m.nu
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy,
Guess what? Earth is in the universe. Our solar system is in the
universe. Our galaxy is in the universe. You're a genius.
Ha!
"Penzias and Wilson's Persistent Noise" is not directional, it
surrounds us - and was predicted as residual radiation from the
initial expansion, before it was detected. We are inside that
expansion, inside the big bang. Space and time expanded from it.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the big bang
occurred inside the universe, and pushes/pushed everything out from
it.
duke
2018-09-13 21:20:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.
Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe?
Who said there is a center.

Lets
Post by b***@m.nu
say that the universe first started expanding 13.8 bya and has not
stopped expanding since. The galaxies at the center or at least near
the center at that time will be billions of light years from the
actual center any gas, dust and/or any matter would have long since
expanded billions of years from that center. So lets say that there
was a black hole there now from the large amount of matter that was
released there in the center. It would be so large and so bright you
would think someone would have seen it by now.
Not if the center/beginning was beyond the visual range.

If not that then there
Post by b***@m.nu
should be about at least a 13 billion LY gap between that galaxy and
any the nearest galaxies which would be noticeable even with out
technology. Lets say there is a 10 by gap then we could not see the
center because it would be too far but then the age of the universe
would have to be altered because then where did that extra space come
from? ? All this would perhaps be correct if a galaxy of stars formed
around the initial black hole immediately after the black hole
formed. But matter did not form right away and it took even longer for
stars and other stellar thing to form so the very large black hole
would possibly be a naked singularity. There would be no way to detect
this visually but it would be giving off a "very loud" detectable
signature that possibly could be detected.
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense.
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Yap Honghor
2018-09-14 02:23:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.
Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe?
Who said there is a center.
If you accept BB is true, then the bang was the center!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by duke
Lets
say that the universe first started expanding 13.8 bya and has not
stopped expanding since. The galaxies at the center or at least near
the center at that time will be billions of light years from the
actual center any gas, dust and/or any matter would have long since
expanded billions of years from that center. So lets say that there
was a black hole there now from the large amount of matter that was
released there in the center. It would be so large and so bright you
would think someone would have seen it by now.
Not if the center/beginning was beyond the visual range.
No one has any idea about "the center"....
Post by duke
If not that then there
should be about at least a 13 billion LY gap between that galaxy and
any the nearest galaxies which would be noticeable even with out
technology. Lets say there is a 10 by gap then we could not see the
center because it would be too far but then the age of the universe
would have to be altered because then where did that extra space come
from? ? All this would perhaps be correct if a galaxy of stars formed
around the initial black hole immediately after the black hole
formed. But matter did not form right away and it took even longer for
stars and other stellar thing to form so the very large black hole
would possibly be a naked singularity. There would be no way to detect
this visually but it would be giving off a "very loud" detectable
signature that possibly could be detected.
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense
These are the reasons why the big bang theory is not a good enough
explanation. This is also why the numbers that are supposed to be
representative of the age of the universe are totally incorrect and
quite frankly just plain stupid. The universe is AT least twice the
age of the current size and that is just common sense.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
duke
2018-09-14 20:16:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by duke
Post by b***@m.nu
The main problem that I have is the "Penzias and Wilson’s Persistent
Noise" is persistent on earth, I would even go so far as to say it is
persistent in this solar system and possibly even this galaxy, but for
anyone at all to say that it is a universal constant is a bold step to
that person being classified as a complete idiot.
Another problem I have is where is the center of the universe?
Who said there is a center.
If you accept BB is true, then the bang was the center!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Suppose it was life a balloon.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Gronk
2018-09-22 05:11:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
***@m.nu wrote:
Waddya mean? It's a great show. And it's only a few years old.

Loading...