Big Bang: The BIG LIE!!
BB EXPLOSION: WHAT IS THE LEADING EDGE MADE FROM?? BRICKS? STEEL? PLASTIC? AND WTF IS THE BLACK STUFF??
WHAT IS ALL THAT BLACK STUFF SURROUNDING THE BIG BANG EXPANSION????
GEORGES LEMAINTRE: 2000 YEARS AGO WE WERE TAUGHT BY IGNORANT DESERT TRIBESMEN IN THE MID-EAST. NOW WE ARE TAUGHT BY PRIESTS!!!!!
CAN WE THROW A SPEAR THROUGH THE BRICK WALL AT THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE? WHY NOT?????????
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you? If so, then WHAT is outside the box?
Much to the dismay of many followers of religion, in my previous hub,
Big Bang: The Universe is NOT Expanding
http://hubpages.com/hub/Big-Bang-The-Universe-is-NOT-Expanding
I explained why the universe is a concept, rather than an object. And since concepts cannot expand, then it’s obvious that the universe cannot expand.
In this hub we will discuss the myth of creation, which is known as the Big Bang in many religious circles.
Does the Universe Have an Edge?
The only way the universe can be classified as an object, is if it has an edge, a border....it must have shape!
Many thought experiments for creation and universes were proposed throughout the middle ages, and can be found in antiquity too. One of the most beautiful early examples was proposed by Lucretius.
Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 99 BC – ca. 55 BC) was a Roman poet and philosopher. His only known work is the epic philosophical poem on Epicureanism De Rerum Natura, translated into English as: On the Nature of Things.
In this work, Lucretius reasons that space is, by his own words, ‘infinite’. His reasoning is: if there is a purported boundary to the universe, we can toss a spear at it. If the spear flies through, it isn't a boundary after all; if the spear bounces back, then there must be something beyond the supposed edge of space. Either way, there is NO edge to the universe; space is boundless. This means that space cannot be contained like an object can be contained in a box. Space is indeed not finite, not physical; space is nothing.
Lucretius also reasoned that nothing comes from ‘nothing’, and nothing can be destroyed. Matter exists in imperceptible objects (atoms) separated from one another by space. The atoms are solid, indivisible, and eternal.
So is the Universe an Object? Is the Universe finite?
All objects have the intrinsic property of shape.
For those who parrot that the Universe is an object or finite, all they have to do is draw a picture illustrating this object they call THE UNIVERSE.
Then they would have to explain what the border or edge of their universe is made from? Bricks? Steel? Plastic? Nothing?
Finally, they need to account for the STUFF outside the edge of their universe that gives it contour.
Is this STUFF nothing? If yes, then that’s part of their universe and their universe HAS NO EDGE!
Is this STUFF something? If yes, then that’s part of their universe and their universe HAS NO EDGE!
No matter which way they go, the only conclusion they will arrive to, is that their universe is NOT an object. Their universe, like ANY universe, is always a CONCEPT! Concepts do not expand, and certainly DO NOT get created from singularities. Concepts are only conceived (invented) by human apes.
Contemporary & traditional religions always treat concepts as NOUNS in sentences, in the hopes that the public believes that they are dealing with objects. This is a logical fallacy we call REIFICATION (fallacy of misplaced concreteness).
Either way, the stupidity of the notion of CREATION, whether Big Bang or Biblical, is contradictory, it defies all logic and reason, and is instantly debunked!!
Big Bang = Religion!
The Religion of the Big Bang
The Big Bang theorizes that 13 to 18 billion years ago, all matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot point that was infinitely small. This point is called the ‘singularity’. For some unknown reason, the singularity exploded. The problem with this theory is quite clear. It is suggesting that "nothing" exploded and created "everything." A bit contradictory, to say the least, and yet widely accepted. It states "In the realm of the universe, nothing means nothing...from this state of nothing, the universe began in a giant explosion" (Prentice Hall General Science, pg 362), and goes on to say "After many billions of years, all the matter and energy will once again be packed into a small area. This area may be no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Then, another big bang will occur...A big bang may occur once every 80 to 100 billion years." (pg 63).
The concept of the Big Bang did not originate with Edwin Hubble, but from a Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaître. In 1927, two years before Hubble published his observations of the Red Shift, Lemaître presented his Big Bang theory on the creation of the universe. This BB theory arose because the Catholic Church, which was active in science, was seeking for a “scientific” proof for many centuries that God created the universe. They wanted to cross the line from belief into science. Only then could they claim bragging rights that their theology was the truth.
The lunacy is realized when one understands that the BB Theory claims the medium for creation was "nothing". It is creation ex nihilo!
There was an initial uproar among some of the well noted scientists of the time. Hubble didn't want to accept this theory because it doesn't explain why there are so many blue-shifted galaxies. Einstein didn't want to accept it either, because the 'singularity' violates Special Relativity. Special Relativity explicitly forbids point-masses like singularities. Both Hubble and Einstein knew the BB was bunk, but they ultimately succumbed to peer pressure. It was either that, or be ousted by the community.
It is quite obvious, that those who believe in the Big Bang theory cannot have it both ways. They cannot harp on religion and creationists, when they are actually pushing their OWN religion with creation out of NOTHING! They have no rational explanations for anything they preach. Their position is hilariously stupid at all levels. The BB is nothing but religion dressed up as pseudo-science!
Relativists claim that the universe used to be a 0D singularity that had no size.
"At the big bang itself the universe is thought to have had zero size (p. 117) a star collapsing under its own gravity is trapped in a region whose surface eventually shrinks to zero size" (p. 49 A Brief History in Time – Stephen Hawking)
Perhaps in the religion of Relativity there can exist spirits that have zero size, but not in physics. Whatever is alleged to have a zero size can only be classified as nothing! So how did this 0D singularity (nothing) create space and matter?
In Science, we use Theories to explain. Before we explain, we must first make an assumption, the Hypothesis. In the case of the Big Bang, the Relativist makes the assumption that there was a mathematical 0D singularity. This singularity, a concept, is reified into an object so that the miracle of creation can ensue. This abstract concept exploded and morphed into space and matter. And not only that, but it created an object they call: The Universe.
But what did the singularity explode and expand into?
The singularity has 'nothing' (i.e., space) contouring 'it'. It's funny because the singularity ALREADY includes space. So the idiots of this Big Bang Theory have space contouring space, nothing around nothing. Can you believe this nonsense?
So then WHAT gives shape to the Universe? Is it space (nothing)? It is obvious that the universe has no shape or border; hence it is not an object as claimed. And since it is not an object, then the universe cannot possibly expand! The universe is only a conceptual relation of matter and space.
It looks like these guys borrowed the singularity explosion idea from the book of Genesis, which claims that a magical God created matter by converting space into atoms. This is exactly what Lemaître did on behalf of the Pope at the time. Now everybody has bought into the idea that the story of Genesis is supported by hard scientific evidence and proof!
THE BIG BANG CREATION MYTH IS NO DIFFERENT THAN CREATION EX-NIHILO
Both the ‘Singularity’ and ‘God’ are asserted by some fanatics to be: non-physical, immaterial, incorporeal, intangible, of no substance, dimensionless, spiritual/conceptual.
And to add insult to injury, the priests of the BB Theory also claim that TIME was created by the BB. How can ‘time’, which is a concept, be created? It takes a biological brain to conceive of time. Such surrealistic fantasy belongs in Harry Potter storybooks, not in science.
And what is funnier still....is that many Protestant sects are quick to dismiss the Big Bang Theory, because they don’t want to be associated with those Catholic Virgin Mary worshippers. So I’ll give the Protestants some brownie points for dismissing the BB nonsense. But I’m not letting them off the hook because they are still asserting the irrationality of the creation myth.
These are the tough questions we ask anybody who claims Creation:
1. Explain to us where the first bit of matter came from? Did your God create it from his loins?
2. Explain how “nothing” (0D singularity) can acquire Length, Width, and Height in order to form into an “object” with shape.
3. Better still; explain how ‘nothing’ can create space, which is already nothing!
4. What was the ‘void’ before creation? Was it nothing (i.e. space)?
In physics, we explain it as follows:
Object: that which has shape
Space: that which lacks shape
Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into an object.
An object cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.
Since space has no boundaries, matter cannot escape space. Matter is eternal. It has always been there and will continue to be there after humans are gone.
Conclusion
Creation in all of its forms, whether under the guise of God or of the Big Bang, has no place in science. Only those who are pushing a religion will believe and claim that the universe (concept), space (nothing), and matter (atoms) exploded from mathematical singularity (nothing). Anybody who believes that space is a physical object capable of expanding and carrying the stars and the galaxies with it, has to have his head examined.
Comments
Mark on February 10, 2015:
Love your blog...have you seen this? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
Ant K on October 03, 2014:
ibeleiinGOD, I see you've that you've chosen to assert the existence of, and make a claim about, your comfort blanket belief, instead of directly responding to the content of the article. One would think you have no argument and have put your hands over your eyes to hide from the reality that you're unable to challenge something that destroys your brainless belief system. How sad, but predictable.
ibeleiinGOD on September 23, 2014:
GOD cannot be compared for GOD is everything.
fatfist (author) on August 06, 2014:
Alan, join our fb Physics group "Rational Scientific Method" and raise this topic for discussion.
Alan on August 06, 2014:
Would it be out of line to ask you your thoughts concerning the documentry "particle fever"? I watched it and wish that there was someone in the movie discussing the issues the theory has. I know you can shed some light on this in a very clear way, but then again this might be the wrong place to ask this question.
fatfist (author) on February 15, 2014:
"How is this resistance accomplished if all the atoms in this universe are interacting each other in a precise manner?"
It's called "pull". There are only 2 possible forces in nature. The other is called "push".
Free will means unpredictable behavior in living entities. They have the ability to choose. Inert objects don't.
Harris had the ability to write a book and exercised his wish to do so....irrespective of the actual mechanics involved in the brain, which are irrlevant to the definition of 'free will'.
Don Mon Ster on February 15, 2014:
I will definitely join this page on Facebook.
"Yes it is. All atoms must be interconnected. This is the only way objects can attract each other via gravitation."
I completely agree with you there. Its a perfectly rational statment and I cannot see it being any other way.
"The text can tell you to move your left or right hand…..but you decided the hell with that, and moved your foot instead. You exercised your free will to do so. Nothing forced you to comply with what the text dictated."
Ok, but how can I be even remotely sure that nothing forced me to comply or otherwise. I am not aware of decision making of my brain (Liebet experiments) and therefore "me feeling" that I made or didn't make some decision means nothing.
"The point is that they had the free will to choose whether to use a methodology to make their decision."
They sure felt like they had the ability to make a decision but again, feeling something stands for nothing.
"Living entities have the unique ability to resist this interaction and move against it. See my article on life."
So, I've read your article on life before and this is the part that is very interesting to me.
"Inert entities are pulled by other
entities without offering any resistance to them. Living entities necessarily resist the gravitational attraction from all other entities in the Universe."
I don't quite get it what is the meaning of the word resistance in this statement. How is this resistance accomplished if all the atoms in this universe are interacting each other in a precise manner? I just don't understand how is this resistance possible. To me it is like saying- all atoms in universe are not able to resist gravity but if you assemble them in the way that they create a human ape or any other living being then they suddenly do. If it is possible for atoms to suddenly accomplish the ability of resisting the gravity then what is mechanics behind that happening?
"It’s hilarious how Sam Harris claims there is no free will in humans…..but yet he had the free will to write such a book. Contradictory at best."
How do you know that Sam had free will to write his book? So what I'am basically asking you what is a so called "free will" and how it functions on a micro level (or any level)?
fatfist (author) on February 15, 2014:
“isnt every single piece of atom affecting ever other piece of atom in the Universe?”
Yes it is. All atoms must be interconnected. This is the only way objects can attract each other via gravitation.
“can I move my hand and be sure that I made the decision, or was it the the atoms and molecules in my body reacting in the only possible way to the text you have written?”
The text can tell you to move your left or right hand…..but you decided the hell with that, and moved your foot instead. You exercised your free will to do so. Nothing forced you to comply with what the text dictated.
“ in the moment of making that decision (im not sure when that moment occured) if the whole Universe was just the way it was how could I have made a different decision”
You may have made a different decision after reading an article encouraging you to get the red bike. Your brain will process the data available that that instant and reach some (logical to you) decision. Others won’t even think about it and just pick a bike randomly. The point is that they had the free will to choose whether to use a methodology to make their decision.
“we can affect the Universe, but if we are being affected by atoms to make affect then it is just simple interaction.”
Living entities have the unique ability to resist this interaction and move against it. See my article on life.
It’s hilarious how Sam Harris claims there is no free will in humans…..but yet he had the free will to write such a book. Contradictory at best. And whether or not a human has free will has nothing to do with having the ability to trace the SOURCE of where the thought came from to write a book. That has nothing to do with the fact that Harris did indeed write a book.
Anyway, if you’d like to discuss this or other Science stuff further, join our “Rational Scientific Method” group on facebook.
Thanks!
Don Mon Ster on February 15, 2014:
"we have living entities in the Universe which physically affect every single bit of matter out there"
First of all, hello. I cannot argue with this statement, however, isnt every single piece of atom affecting ever other piece of atom in the Universe?
"Just move your hand or blink your eyelid and you’ve pulled on every single atom in the Universe via action-at-a-distance gravitation."
I can definitely do what you just suggested but that doesnt mean that I have free will? The mechanics of making decision to move my hand are complex but the core question of this problem is: can I move my hand and be sure that I made the decision, or was it the the atoms and molecules in my body reacting in the only possible way to the text you have written?
I'm just wondering- is it irrational to think that "human apes" are assembled of atoms and molecules which interact with each other in particular way and that there is only one way of this interaction to give us a result-decision?
Lets present a little example- few years ago i needed a new bike. So i see two bikes in the bike shop that I really like and they are both similarly priced and have same specs. One was black-grey and the other was white with red details. I took the black-grey one because of the color (I think). I can't say what was the real reason of buying that bike but but I can write this- in the moment of me realising that I want a black bike can I be even remotely sure how that decision was made? Sure, it took me some time to think which one to buy but that thinking time could also be determined by moving atoms. So, in the moment of making that decision (im not sure when that moment occured) if the whole Universe was just the way it was how could I have made a different decision. If human apes have true free will then I can't see how it can function without somehow magically reversing the way that atoms and molecules move (and it doesn't even matter if the atoms are moving in a deterministic or non-deterministic way). As you already said, we can affect the Universe, but if we are being affected by atoms to make affect then it is just simple interaction. In the end, my opinion is that people should't use concepts of free will so freely if we cannot explain it. On the other side, absence of free will seems much easier to explain.
If you are interested read here about the illusion of free will http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2012/05/15/An-A...
Thank you for your time Fatfist :-)
P.S. - You should start writing a book if you already haven't started. Keep up the good work :-)
fatfist (author) on February 15, 2014:
“If there is a certaint way in which two atoms interact (and if it is the only way) then it would be rational to say that every event is deterministic and can not be changed no matter”
You may say that events involving inert matter are deterministic. But even still….we have living entities in the Universe which physically affect every single bit of matter out there. Just move your hand or blink your eyelid and you’ve pulled on every single atom in the Universe via action-at-a-distance gravitation. Living entities do have free will and they certainly can affect other events. You can move your left or right hand as you wish right now. Nothing in the Universe will determine which one it will be.
Don Mon Ster on February 14, 2014:
"It ultimately stems from atoms sending signals to each other."
I completely agree with you and I think that this claim is very important. If there is a certaint way in which two atoms interact (and if it is the only way) then it would be rational to say that every event is deterministic and can not be changed no matter what is our opinion cause our opinion is also basically a product of motion between atoms and molecules. Even if there is certaint randomness to the way the atoms interact I still cannot see how free will can function. I do not want to bore you with this if you are not interested but you seem to be a person with great knowledge and I am basically just asking you if this kind of thinking is rational or not.
Thank you :-)
fatfist (author) on February 14, 2014:
The fact that you can and do make choices you have free will. That's what the concept means. Nobody has tackled the task to dissect exactly how the brain works, much less how it makes choices. It ultimately stems from atoms sending signals to each other. Check out how the high level neuron works.
Don Mon Ster on February 14, 2014:
hey Fatfist,
it seems to me that the message before this last one was not send to you so I will repeat it. It does not seem possible that a concept called free will can be rational. What is your understanding of free will and if our brain is capable of making choices, how does this happen?
Peace man :-)
fatfist (author) on February 14, 2014:
Already answered ....Don.
Don Mon Ster on February 14, 2014:
yo Fatfist,
I have just read your article called "Olbers Paradox" and after reading it there is no need for you to explain the first question in my previous post cause it seems to me that I found all my answers. However I would still like if you could answer the question about free will.
Thank you in advance :-)
fatfist (author) on February 13, 2014:
“Are there any other scientific models about Universe that propose explanation that would seem rational except for the model you presented here?”
Well, what are the options? This is what we need to address first. The options are either creation or non-creation (i.e. an eternal Universe).
As it turns out, creation is a hypothesis….an assumption which sets the stage for a rational explanation (i.e. a Theory) outlining in detail the process of creation; i.e. a movie depicting how space & matter can be created.
But is the concept of eternal Universe a hypothesis? Can it possibly be an assumption? If so, then just what is it we are going to explain…..how space & matter were never eternal (i.e. they were created) at some time in the past….and magically became eternal? Does this even make sense? No! This is contradictory reasoning. Hence, eternal Universe is the DEFAULT scenario and creation is the CLAIM a human posits. Only a claim can possibly be amenable to an explanation. Eternal Universe is definitely NOT a hypothesis or claim….contrary to what some believe. The bottom line is that if you don’t like the Universe being eternal, you had better explain the process of creation.
On creation, can space be created? Space is nothing. It’s impossible to create nothing. Nothingness is eternal. How about matter…..how does nothing acquire shape and morph into matter? If there was nothing there to begin with, then matter can’t be created. Creation is clearly impossible. Matter is eternal and is perpetually recycled into new objects.
“what is your view on determinism?”
All that determinism tells us is that there are unavoidable outcomes. Humans can individually have all the free will they want and exercise it in any way they wish. This individual free will cannot prevent some guaranteed (deterministic) outcomes. If you jump off a cliff you have the free will to wave your arms. But you do not have the free will to fly upwards or avoid your death. We do not have the free will to avoid aging and death as they are both deterministic.
Don Mon Ster on February 13, 2014:
hello Fatfist,
I've read almost all of your texts and I have to say your writing is brilliant. You're the main reason why I've joined this page and you really motivated me to ask you a few questions that aren't really connected to this topic but I hope you will be kind enough to answer them. Are there any other scientific models about Universe that propose explanation that would seem rational except for the model you presented here? Also, what is your view on determinism? Looking forward to your response.