The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[Polymath257]

In GR a singularity is an inability to extend a certain coordinate? That's trying to tell you something. It's trying to tell you that what you are trying to do is impossible.

OK, so it is impossible to talk about 14 billion years ago. Which is why I don't expect to see anything that old in Webb.

I misunderstand what it means to be a singularity? No one understands the idea of a singularity. There is no scientific theory that allows a condense sphere of particles to suddenly expand. Black holes do not explode or inflate or expand.

And that is not what the Big Bang theoy says happened.

I'm showing that I don't understand the concept? I understand it as well as the scientists do. It just doesn't work and does not match testable and experimental evidence nor does it match logic because it violates a fundamental law of physics.

No, you do not understand it as well as the scientists do. In fact, you have no understanding of it to speak of.

So you ignore the evidence? Your choice, but then why argue?

Gravity is the curvature of space and becomes active when time exists? Gravity is not the curvature of space. Yes, gravity curves three dimensional space but gravity exists in all eleven dimensions. And, time, as you believe it, started at the exact moment the singularity began to expand, so, gravity would have stopped the big bang the fraction of a second it tried to start.

Not what I said. Gravity is the curvature of *spacetime*, not just of space.

The big bang does not have a center of expansion? I know it doesn't. If your idea was correct it should. You can't have matter self generate at multiple points all at exactly the same moment. You guys are trying to prove a fantasy that is impossible.

No, if the BB is correct, it would NOT have a center of expansion. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! Matter isn't 'originating' at separate points. It existed *everywhere*.

There was no before the big bang? There was no big bang. But there was a time before the nebula's were formed, time being a sequence of events.

SIGH. In the BB model, there is no time before the BB. Can you at least focus on the model for a bit? You questions about 'origination' and 'before' simply do not apply.

 

[gnostic]

You don't understand the Big Bang. That much is clear.

You can say that again.

He is still stuck in the 19th century physics.

 

[gnostic]

I misunderstand what it means to be a singularity? No one understands the idea of a singularity. There is no scientific theory that allows a condense sphere of particles to suddenly expand. Black holes do not explode or inflate or expand.

Sorry, but who said anything that singularity has to be a “sphere”?

 

[gnostic]

OK, so it is impossible to talk about 14 billion years ago. Which is why I don't expect to see anything that old in Webb.

I don’t think Super Universe understand that the JWST won’t show anything older than 14 billion years.

I wish it would, but it’s not going to happen.

JWST will be and should be better than the Hubble, but it is still going to be limited to oranage to mid-infrared wavelengths. I hardly doubt that it would see older epochs than the Recombination epoch.

Their mission is to view star formations behind the molecular clouds, but the period before the Recombination epoch (and therefore before the CMBR), the universe was opaque, acting like the event horizon. I doubt the JWST is capable of viewing directly periods before the Recombination epoch.

Recently someone posted up that the Cosmic Neutrino Background Radiation might have be discovered by the Planck mission. But it is a “might”.

We need more evidences and data to verify if these neutrinos are indeed background radiation, but unfortunately the Planck space probe had been deactivated since 2013, so there won’t be fresh detections or data to verify it is.

But back to JWST. What it certainly won’t do, is view the universe to be 250 billion years, so SU have claimed.

 

[Super Universe]

Sorry, but who said anything that singularity has to be a “sphere”?

Okay, what shape was it then?

What shape are black holes?

 

[Super Universe]

I don’t think Super Universe understand that the JWST won’t show anything older than 14 billion years.

I wish it would, but it’s not going to happen.

JWST will be and should be better than the Hubble, but it is still going to be limited to oranage to mid-infrared wavelengths. I hardly doubt that it would see older epochs than the Recombination epoch.

Their mission is to view star formations behind the molecular clouds, but the period before the Recombination epoch (and therefore before the CMBR), the universe was opaque, acting like the event horizon. I doubt the JWST is capable of viewing directly periods before the Recombination epoch.

Recently someone posted up that the Cosmic Neutrino Background Radiation might have be discovered by the Planck mission. But it is a “might”.

We need more evidences and data to verify if these neutrinos are indeed background radiation, but unfortunately the Planck space probe had been deactivated since 2013, so there won’t be fresh detections or data to verify it is.

But back to JWST. What it certainly won’t do, is view the universe to be 250 billion years, so SU have claimed.

I understand more than you do. The scientists are going to have to expand their lies in order to explain why the James Webb is revealing fully formed galaxies much older than 14 billion years.

There was no recombination epoch. All of this big bang stuff is wrong.

James Webb will be much better than Hubble. The mirror is five times the size of Hubble and the telescope has a better infrared ability than Hubble so you'd better start preparing your lies now.

The James Webb won't reveal the universe to be 250 billion light years old? No, not even close but it doesn't have to. If it goes over 13.8 billion you have a problem. If it finds full galaxies that are 14 billion years old that means that the big bang lasted at least 200 million years. How can the big bang be a big bang if it lasted for 200 million years? When James Webb reveals fully formed galaxies much over 14, hopefully, we will get back on track and working towards truth instead of typical human ego inflated ideas.

 

[Super Universe]

OK, so it is impossible to talk about 14 billion years ago. Which is why I don't expect to see anything that old in Webb.



And that is not what the Big Bang theoy says happened.



No, you do not understand it as well as the scientists do. In fact, you have no understanding of it to speak of.

So you ignore the evidence? Your choice, but then why argue?



Not what I said. Gravity is the curvature of *spacetime*, not just of space.



No, if the BB is correct, it would NOT have a center of expansion. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! Matter isn't 'originating' at separate points. It existed *everywhere*.





SIGH. In the BB model, there is no time before the BB. Can you at least focus on the model for a bit? You questions about 'origination' and 'before' simply do not apply.

It's impossible to talk about anything existing more than 14 billion years ago? No, it's not. If the Hubble Constant was much slower and then increased in speed then your theory of when the big bang happened could be much older. How exactly the constant could increase in speed would be a huge problem for some scientists to accept.

You don't expect James Webb to find anything older than 14 billion years? It's 13.8. Anything over that and the big bang is impossible.

The big bang does not say a condense sphere of particles suddenly expanded? Right, right, it's simply an inability to extend a certain coordinate. You guys can keep using that spin on the uneducated bible thumpers.

I don't understand the big bang as well as the scientists do? GRAVITY. Boom! Theory done! Game over! Look it up. There's a Wiki page on it. Read up on it and then come back.

Gravity is the curvature of space/time, not just space? But space is not space/time. Space is space, time is time. Space is not time and time is not space. Einstein was good but he was not that good.

If the big bang was correct it would not have a center? Okay, so the matter formed instantly, the matter was close together so it was pressurized and naturally expanded from the pressure and then gravity, at some perfect point, suddenly turned on and pulled the particles into nebula's that formed proto-stars. Is there any evidence of gravity turning on or any theory as to how that could happen? There's no getting around it. You're trying, but it can't happen. I would love to see the evidence but I know you don't have any. Even the angels, with their fantastic abilities, can't violate certain laws of physics.

There was no time before the big bang? You're stuck on your math, "t". I was talking about a sequence of events, this came before that. And, once again, time is not a universal law. I can plan a drive across the country and say that it will take five days but that five days is not a fundamental law that affects or controls the universe.

 

[gnostic]

Okay, what shape was it then?

No one knows.

Anything we say about the Big Bang singularity, as in it shape, is only speculative.

What shape are black holes?

Blackholes could be spherical, because stellar blackholes are dead and former stars are often in the shape of sphere.

We know the shapes of the stars, to be spherical.
We know that the cores of the stars would be spherical too.
We know that only very massive stars can form into blackholes.
We know that when gravitational fields on those “very massive” stars run out of hydrogen to fuse, all the outer layers or shells of the stars would collapse on to the stars’ core thereby making dying stars even denser, more massive than before.

However, the shape of blackholes could be spherical through educated guess that the former stars were spherical. Or it could be a shapeless blob, for all we know, because we really don’t know.

The problem is that the reason why we don’t know is because we still cannot directly observe what’s behind the event horizon of the singularity. What we do know is that we can observe indirectly the effects they have on other stars (especially if it is two or three star system), on planets, on space gases and dusts, and lastly, but not, their effect on light.

I am not an astronomer or astrophysicist, but if I was to hazard a guess as to the shape of stellar blackholes. Well, if a blackhole is spinning or rotating on its axis, like when it did when it was a very massive star, then I would say it is still spherical.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[gnostic]

I understand more than you do. The scientists are going to have to expand their lies in order to explain why the James Webb is revealing fully formed galaxies much older than 14 billion years.

Sorry, but we don’t know what JWST, since it has even launch yet, let alone provide evidences or data that haven’t been activated yet.

You are jumping the guns here, SU.

We know what the parameters of this mission, but until they launch to orbit and turn it on, we really don’t know what information it will send back to NASA, and we don’t if it will achieve success in that mission.

But seriously. The NASA with WMAP and Hubble (HST) missions and the joint ESA and NASA operation of Planck mission, have mostly the same scientists that will be working on JWST.

Now if you are claiming scientists have been lying about the universe in HST, WMAP, Planck, Spitzer (SST), etc, then what make you think these same scientists won’t have the evidences that the universe is less than 14 billion years old with JWST?

You are not thinking straight, SU.

The people who work at NASA and ESA, as well as STScI (Space Telescope Science Institute), especially on space telescopes and probes, scientists, engineers, astronomers, astrophysicists, other specialists, are relying on detectable and measurable data that they will acquire from JWST. So are you going to tell me that they all have been lying in the past missions, but will tell the truth with JWST?

At best, you are absurdly illogical, but at worse, delusional and paranoid.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The big bang theory never stated that it created mass or energy? If it came from another dimension then it did create mass and energy in the 3rd dimension.

You are clearly very confused. That doesn't even begin to make sense.

The problem of gravity and the big bang is why scientists do research? There is no research that will allow a big bang. None. It can't happen. You're only fooling yourselves. The only thing you can say is that galaxies are spreading apart, you have no idea where they came from or why galaxies are spreading apart and you have no idea why the speed of expansion is increasing.

So you're the smartest person on earth and have figured this out despite all the opinions of the world's leading cosmologists and phycisists?

Just because the big bang is beyond my ability to understand doesn't mean it is beyond anyone else's? GRAVITY. You do know what gravity is, don't you? You don't seem to understand it at all.

What does that have to do with what I said?

Where does Polymath say that the big bang created energy, space, and matter? He said it came from the 4th dimension. It's a great excuse, it's like saying "I have no way for this to make sense so it came from the 4th dimension because no one knows jack about the 4th dimension so I'm safe and you can't criticize it." That's no longer science.

Where did Polymath say the big bang created energy, space and matter?

It's like a movie from the 60's "It Came From The 4th Dimension!" Ooooohhh.

You do realise that the 4th dimension doesn't literally refer to an alternative reality, right?

 

[Polymath257]

Recently someone posted up that the Cosmic Neutrino Background Radiation might have be discovered by the Planck mission. But it is a “might”.

We need more evidences and data to verify if these neutrinos are indeed background radiation, but unfortunately the Planck space probe had been deactivated since 2013, so there won’t be fresh detections or data to verify it is.

But back to JWST. What it certainly won’t do, is view the universe to be 250 billion years, so SU have claimed.

Well, they didn't detect the actual neutrinos. It was an indirect detection based on shifts in the peaks in the background radiation. The cool thing is that it came out with the predicted temperature (which is different than the photon background radiation). So it was *very* suggestive, but indirect. I don't think anyone knows a way to directly detect neutrinos of that low of an energy.

 

[Darkstorn]

Okay, what shape was it then?

What shape are black holes?

I'd say your understanding of the subject matter is downright dangerous for the validity of whatever points you are trying to make. You should probably just stop.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand more than you do. The scientists are going to have to expand their lies in order to explain why the James Webb is revealing fully formed galaxies much older than 14 billion years.

There was no recombination epoch. All of this big bang stuff is wrong.

James Webb will be much better than Hubble. The mirror is five times the size of Hubble and the telescope has a better infrared ability than Hubble so you'd better start preparing your lies now.

The James Webb won't reveal the universe to be 250 billion light years old? No, not even close but it doesn't have to. If it goes over 13.8 billion you have a problem. If it finds full galaxies that are 14 billion years old that means that the big bang lasted at least 200 million years. How can the big bang be a big bang if it lasted for 200 million years? When James Webb reveals fully formed galaxies much over 14, hopefully, we will get back on track and working towards truth instead of typical human ego inflated ideas.

I make an absolute prediction, with 99.999% confidence, that Webb will find NOTHING older than 13.8 billion years. Certainly no galaxies, which didn't form until well after the decoupling of matter and photons.

 

[Super Universe]

Sorry, but we don’t know what JWST, since it has even launch yet, let alone provide evidences or data that haven’t been activated yet.

You are jumping the guns here, SU.

We know what the parameters of this mission, but until they launch to orbit and turn it on, we really don’t know what information it will send back to NASA, and we don’t if it will achieve success in that mission.

But seriously. The NASA with WMAP and Hubble (HST) missions and the joint ESA and NASA operation of Planck mission, have mostly the same scientists that will be working on JWST.

Now if you are claiming scientists have been lying about the universe in HST, WMAP, Planck, Spitzer (SST), etc, then what make you think these same scientists won’t have the evidences that the universe is less than 14 billion years old with JWST?

You are not thinking straight, SU.

The people who work at NASA and ESA, as well as STScI (Space Telescope Science Institute), especially on space telescopes and probes, scientists, engineers, astronomers, astrophysicists, other specialists, are relying on detectable and measurable data that they will acquire from JWST. So are you going to tell me that they all have been lying in the past missions, but will tell the truth with JWST?

At best, you are absurdly illogical, but at worse, delusional and paranoid.

Am I claiming that scientists who operate the Hubble, WMAP, Planc, and other telescopes have been lying? No, what I'm claiming is that science as a whole has been lying to the public. You know that gravity will not allow a big bang yet they've continued to promote this idea and they have been trying to force fit the evidence to fit the idea when the evidence does NOT support it.

1 - Gravity will not allow a big bang to happen. Done deal, move on.

2 - Space is cold. It's always been cold. If it were hot at one time and cooled it would not cool equally as we see in the uniform background radiation.

3 - There is no way for humans to know whether energy can be created or not so get rid of that part of the COE.

4 - Hubbles 13.2 billion light year picture showed fully formed galaxies, not an early universe.

I'm not thinking straight? Oh, right, and science is? They violate their own laws and invent ridiculous laws that have no evidence supporting then.

Never trust humans.

 

[Super Universe]

I make an absolute prediction, with 99.999% confidence, that Webb will find NOTHING older than 13.8 billion years. Certainly no galaxies, which didn't form until well after the decoupling of matter and photons.

I can't wait to see you backtrack and come up with excuses, bbbut, but...

 

[sayak83]

Am I claiming that scientists who operate the Hubble, WMAP, Planc, and other telescopes have been lying? No, what I'm claiming is that science as a whole has been lying to the public. You know that gravity will not allow a big bang yet they've continued to promote this idea and they have been trying to force fit the evidence to fit the idea when the evidence does NOT support it.

1 - Gravity will not allow a big bang to happen. Done deal, move on.

2 - Space is cold. It's always been cold. If it were hot at one time and cooled it would not cool equally as we see in the uniform background radiation.

3 - There is no way for humans to know whether energy can be created or not so get rid of that part of the COE.

4 - Hubbles 13.2 billion light year picture showed fully formed galaxies, not an early universe.

I'm not thinking straight? Oh, right, and science is? They violate their own laws and invent ridiculous laws that have no evidence supporting. Never trust humans.

You are badly deluded. It's a pity. Hope you eventually get out of this nonsense about scientific conspiracy.

 

[Super Universe]

You are badly deluded. It's a pity. Hope you eventually get out of this nonsense about scientific conspiracy.

Scientific conspiracy? Or you could call it misuse of the public trust.

I noticed you did not address the points, how does gravity allow a big bang? Oh, it doesn't, right. Now that's a problem, isn't it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Am I claiming that scientists who operate the Hubble, WMAP, Planc, and other telescopes have been lying? No, what I'm claiming is that science as a whole has been lying to the public. You know that gravity will not allow a big bang yet they've continued to promote this idea and they have been trying to force fit the evidence to fit the idea when the evidence does NOT support it.

1 - Gravity will not allow a big bang to happen. Done deal, move on.

2 - Space is cold. It's always been cold. If it were hot at one time and cooled it would not cool equally as we see in the uniform background radiation.

3 - There is no way for humans to know whether energy can be created or not so get rid of that part of the COE.

4 - Hubbles 13.2 billion light year picture showed fully formed galaxies, not an early universe.

I'm not thinking straight? Oh, right, and science is? They violate their own laws and invent ridiculous laws that have no evidence supporting then.

Never trust humans.

Those two sentences do not make sense. Science is not a person. It's a methodology and a tool. Scientists practice science.

 

[Super Universe]

Those two sentences do not make sense. Science is not a person. It's a methodology and a tool. Scientists practice science.

Scientists practice science? Do they? What evidence or test gives you evidence that says that energy cannot be created? Name one.

How does a big bang happen when gravity won't allow it to happen?

How does uniform background radiation prove the big bang when the big bang was supposedly very hot and what we see is a uniformly very cold universe?

How does the big bang happen 13.8 billion years ago but the Hubble took a 13.2 billion year old picture that does not show an early universe but fully formed galaxies?

The scientists have been lying to the public.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Scientists practice science? Do they? What evidence or test gives you evidence that says that energy cannot be created? Name one.

How does a big bang happen when gravity won't allow it to happen?

How does uniform background radiation prove the big bang when the big bang was supposedly very hot and what we see is a uniformly very cold universe?

How does the big bang happen 13.8 billion years ago but the Hubble took a 13.2 billion year old picture that does not show an early universe but fully formed galaxies?

The scientists have been lying to the public.

Yes, scientists practice science.

Your claim didn't make sense. I pointed that out. Perhaps you could clarify.