h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 1 八十年代89年以前，方励之就是拿着宇宙大爆炸理论到处到全国各大城市名校演讲，很
多青年学生以为是方发明了这宇宙大爆炸理论。 后来到了美国后才发现这宇宙大爆炸
理论是西方宗教人士发明的，而且是老掉牙的烂货。 只可惜89年后邓产党只批方的西
化论没有批方在物理学上的错误，以致还有很多大中学生上当在宇宙大爆炸这种伪科学
上浪费青春。 |
i*****g
发帖数: 11893 | 2 这个理论不是他搞的吧，只不过他有兴趣在那里说书科普 |
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 3 老方为何学择这种没任何实际应用的伪科学来科普？ 八十年代的中国非常需要的是固
体物理，微电子半导有关的物理学理论
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: 这个理论不是他搞的吧，只不过他有兴趣在那里说书科普
|
r******y
发帖数: 3838 | 4 宇宙大爆炸不一定正确，但绝对是科学的结果，和进化论差不多。
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 八十年代89年以前，方励之就是拿着宇宙大爆炸理论到处到全国各大城市名校演讲，很
: 多青年学生以为是方发明了这宇宙大爆炸理论。 后来到了美国后才发现这宇宙大爆炸
: 理论是西方宗教人士发明的，而且是老掉牙的烂货。 只可惜89年后邓产党只批方的西
: 化论没有批方在物理学上的错误，以致还有很多大中学生上当在宇宙大爆炸这种伪科学
: 上浪费青春。
|
h******t
发帖数: 872 | 5 胡爷爷: 发现这宇宙大爆炸
理论是西方宗教人士发明的，而且是老掉牙的烂货。???
Please take a little bit time to do some research, not that hard. 丢人现眼！ |
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 6 八十年代的中国，不应该化人力物力去研讨宇宙大爆炸正确与否，而是应该集中精力把
半导体/微电子和航空发动机之类的核心技术搞出来。 不明白邓小平把很多半导/微电/
航空之类的项目砍了，却要教授们去追捧这种垃圾理论。
宇宙大爆炸的神学背景比科学背景要浓得多了，说是科学结果还不如说神学需要更贴切
些。
对比进化论，想想吧，进化论刚出来时（到现在还是）是受到神学界得批判/抵制/甚或
可以说迫害的。
【在 r******y 的大作中提到】
: 宇宙大爆炸不一定正确，但绝对是科学的结果，和进化论差不多。
|
r******y
发帖数: 3838 | 7 搞理论和搞应用没什么矛盾吧。搞应用是要花大钱的。养几个搞理论的花钱对一个国家
来说忽略不计。
搞东西不能只搞表面上有用的，很多理论发现的时侯没什么用，过一百年有大用。
神学是否需要和理论是否科学没有必然关系。没听说只有受神学界得批判/抵制才是科
学的。
电/
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 八十年代的中国，不应该化人力物力去研讨宇宙大爆炸正确与否，而是应该集中精力把
: 半导体/微电子和航空发动机之类的核心技术搞出来。 不明白邓小平把很多半导/微电/
: 航空之类的项目砍了，却要教授们去追捧这种垃圾理论。
: 宇宙大爆炸的神学背景比科学背景要浓得多了，说是科学结果还不如说神学需要更贴切
: 些。
: 对比进化论，想想吧，进化论刚出来时（到现在还是）是受到神学界得批判/抵制/甚或
: 可以说迫害的。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 8 是啊，如果只是老方他自己一个人关在房子里闭关参悟宇宙大爆炸理论，我也没有意见
， 可当年他可是到处在全国各大城市的名校吹捧这个“理论”的，你知道很多青少年
是很容易被他骗得。
另外，你起码也该承认，这宇宙大爆炸和进化论是完全不可比的吧？
【在 r******y 的大作中提到】
: 搞理论和搞应用没什么矛盾吧。搞应用是要花大钱的。养几个搞理论的花钱对一个国家
: 来说忽略不计。
: 搞东西不能只搞表面上有用的，很多理论发现的时侯没什么用，过一百年有大用。
: 神学是否需要和理论是否科学没有必然关系。没听说只有受神学界得批判/抵制才是科
: 学的。
:
: 电/
|
r******y
发帖数: 3838 | 9 宇宙大爆炸和进化论相似处是根残留痕迹推出据历史过程，有点像考古。
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 是啊，如果只是老方他自己一个人关在房子里闭关参悟宇宙大爆炸理论，我也没有意见
: ， 可当年他可是到处在全国各大城市的名校吹捧这个“理论”的，你知道很多青少年
: 是很容易被他骗得。
: 另外，你起码也该承认，这宇宙大爆炸和进化论是完全不可比的吧？
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 10 老实说，宇宙的历史太长，那些“根残留痕迹”实是瞎扯。
生物进化的根残留痕迹还是很明显的。
【在 r******y 的大作中提到】
: 宇宙大爆炸和进化论相似处是根残留痕迹推出据历史过程，有点像考古。
|
|
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 11 10年前我就调研过了，是你应该去调研，不要丢人现眼！
“西方宗教人士发明” 这个说法不够恰当， 因为在西方很多“宗教人士”很容易否认
自己是有宗教任务的，但这个大爆炸理论的宗教/神学背景是确定无疑的。
【在 h******t 的大作中提到】
: 胡爷爷: 发现这宇宙大爆炸
: 理论是西方宗教人士发明的，而且是老掉牙的烂货。???
: Please take a little bit time to do some research, not that hard. 丢人现眼！
|
P*********0
发帖数: 4321 | 12 你懂个球
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 八十年代89年以前，方励之就是拿着宇宙大爆炸理论到处到全国各大城市名校演讲，很
: 多青年学生以为是方发明了这宇宙大爆炸理论。 后来到了美国后才发现这宇宙大爆炸
: 理论是西方宗教人士发明的，而且是老掉牙的烂货。 只可惜89年后邓产党只批方的西
: 化论没有批方在物理学上的错误，以致还有很多大中学生上当在宇宙大爆炸这种伪科学
: 上浪费青春。
|
n****o
发帖数: 1167 | |
N*****2
发帖数: 2318 | 14 楼主智慧有点弱，当然思路是爱国爱民的。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb - 中文网站浏览器
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 八十年代89年以前，方励之就是拿着宇宙大爆炸理论到处到全国各大城市名校演讲，很
: 多青年学生以为是方发明了这宇宙大爆炸理论。 后来到了美国后才发现这宇宙大爆炸
: 理论是西方宗教人士发明的，而且是老掉牙的烂货。 只可惜89年后邓产党只批方的西
: 化论没有批方在物理学上的错误，以致还有很多大中学生上当在宇宙大爆炸这种伪科学
: 上浪费青春。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | |
h******t
发帖数: 872 | 16 胡爷爷:
不丢人现眼? you don't need a physics phd to do this research to find out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted
within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and
comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers
observe.
The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general
relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy
of space. The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. |
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 17 你真丢人啊？ 查过维基你就算做过调研了？你这点也好意思来丢人现眼？
Friedmann.
【在 h******t 的大作中提到】
: 胡爷爷:
: 不丢人现眼? you don't need a physics phd to do this research to find out
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
: The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted
: within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and
: comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers
: observe.
: The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general
: relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy
: of space. The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann.
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 18 网上揭露 宇宙大爆炸论是穿这科学外衣的神学 的文章多得是，当然某些无知无耻的“
伪科学家”会把那些文章说成是民科。
宇宙大爆炸论说成是经过实验验证的，是人类科学史上最大的谎言！ |
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 19 你就好好读读维基上的这段话，就该明白了 BIG-BANG 的宗教背景，是为神学的需要
而诞生的。 当然，很多科学家，只要能拿到钱，当然愿意为神父们效犬马之劳。
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its
agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of
reality it carries theological implications regarding the concept of
creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing").[87][88][89]
According to the Oxford professor Peter Harrison, discussions of the Big
Bang's religious implications "constitute one of the liveliest areas of
contemporary science-religion interchange."[90]
Friedmann.
【在 h******t 的大作中提到】
: 胡爷爷:
: 不丢人现眼? you don't need a physics phd to do this research to find out
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
: The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted
: within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and
: comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers
: observe.
: The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general
: relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy
: of space. The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann.
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 20 宇宙大爆炸论，和转基因粮食一样，说明了有些科学家们为了金钱利益，可以出卖科学
精神， 这些虚伪的科学家，可以为了从神父那里拿到钱， 或者从孟山都那种生化公司
拿到钱，不惜伪造科学数据，出卖灵魂。
宇宙大爆炸论，和转基因粮食是人类历史上最大的两个科学骗局，现在还在欺骗世人的大骗局。
of
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 你就好好读读维基上的这段话，就该明白了 BIG-BANG 的宗教背景，是为神学的需要
: 而诞生的。 当然，很多科学家，只要能拿到钱，当然愿意为神父们效犬马之劳。
: The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its
: agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of
: reality it carries theological implications regarding the concept of
: creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing").[87][88][89]
: According to the Oxford professor Peter Harrison, discussions of the Big
: Bang's religious implications "constitute one of the liveliest areas of
: contemporary science-religion interchange."[90]
:
|
|
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 21 西方雇佣方励之在中国宣传BIG-BANG，雇佣方舟子在中国宣传转基因粮食，都姓方阿，
很巧。
的大骗局。
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 宇宙大爆炸论，和转基因粮食一样，说明了有些科学家们为了金钱利益，可以出卖科学
: 精神， 这些虚伪的科学家，可以为了从神父那里拿到钱， 或者从孟山都那种生化公司
: 拿到钱，不惜伪造科学数据，出卖灵魂。
: 宇宙大爆炸论，和转基因粮食是人类历史上最大的两个科学骗局，现在还在欺骗世人的大骗局。
:
: of
|
l******t
发帖数: 55733 | 22 第一次听说宇宙大爆炸是宗教理论的。小时候踢你头的驴还健在不？ |
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 23 没听说过是你自己无知。这只能说明你是个很容易被骗的无知之徒， 你又要凭你自己的无知骂人，你又无耻了。
揭露 BIG-BANG 是披着科学外衣的宗教，这在10年前就有很多文章了。
THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE
by Michael Rivero
Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was this guy named Aristotle.
Pretty sharp fellow; he thought up a lot of good things. But, occasionally
he made a mistake.
One mistake he made was to toss an orange up in the air and watch it come
straight back down to his hand. Aristotle reasoned that if he was moving,
the orange would have flown off to one side as soon as it left his hand.
Because the orange did not do so, Aristotle concluded he was not moving. On
the basis of this one observed fact, and the assumption that there was no
other explanation for what he observed, Aristotle concluded that the Earth
does not move and that therefore the rest of the universe had to move around
it.
Aristotle was a very sharp guy, but the fact is that there was another
explanation for why the orange fell back into his hand, and it would wait
about another 2000 years before another smart man, Sir Isaac Newton,
explained just what it was Aristotle had overlooked, set forth in Newton's
laws of motion.
But for the early church, Aristotle's conclusions fit in rather well with
their theology, which had the Earth created as the center of the universe,
unmoving, with the rest of the cosmos spinning about it.
Of course, there was empirical evidence available to all that cast doubt on
the church-approved version of the Cosmos. One could see during eclipses
that the Earth was not flat. The curved shape of the Earth's shadow as it
crossed the moon was the same no matter which place in the sky the eclipse
took place. A spherical Earth was the only shape that could produce such a
result. Ships sailing over the horizon clearly vanished over a subtle curve
( an observation which eventually inspired Columbus' voyages). Nobody could
explain the behavior of a Foucault's Pendulum other than by the Earth
spinning beneath it.
But by far the most troubling problem for the geocentric (earth centered)
universe was the strange behavior of the planets. In an age before TV, or
even books, the night sky was something every person was quite familiar with
, even those who were not sailors or fortune tellers. Watching the night sky
over time, the paths of the planets were easily seen to occasionally pause,
move in reverse for a time, then proceed forward. This behavior was called
retrograde motion. Ah, but this was a problem. The church did not have an
explanation for this behavior. Indeed in the King James Version of the Bible
, the word "planet" appears only once, and then only as an object to be
sacrificed to.
There is a very simple explanation for retrograde motion. As the Earth,
moving in its inner orbit, overtakes an outer planet, it will appear to
hesitate, reverse its path across the sky, then resume its normal path. But
the idea that the Earth moved was contrary to Church Dogma and to Aristotle.
What education was tolerated by the church was "encouraged" to find some
way to explain retrograde motion in a way that did not conflict with the
religious needs for a universe centered on an unmoving Earth. Rather than re
-examine Aristotle's basic claim, the learned men of the day grabbed onto a
suggestion made by Claudius Ptolemy called "epicycles". This theory
explained retrograde motion around a motionless Earth by suggesting that the
planets moved in large orbits called deferents, upon which were
superimposed smaller orbits called epicycles which produced a "wobble" as
seen from Earth.
Epicycles were extremely popular with the church, and scholars at
universities with religious affiliations were "encouraged" to refine this
theory. And it needed refinement, badly, because the epicycle theory did not
accurately predict what was being seen in the sky. Generations of effort
was expended trying to figure out why the models did not predict the actual
motions of the planets. At one point, it was even suggested that the
epicycles had epicycles. No matter how many times the observed results did
not match the predictions, the approved course of action was to refine the
theory, but never to question the basic assumption. Those who dared point to
the evidence suggesting that Aristotle (and by extension the church) were
in error in postulating a geocentric universe were "discouraged". Galileo
was tortured into recanting his conclusions that the Earth moved. Giordano
Bruno was burned alive at the stake for suggesting that the sun was really
just another star, only close up, and that the other stars had their own
planets.
In recent times, our expanding technology has confirmed that Galileo and
Bruno were right, and Aristotle and the church were flat out wrong. The
Earth does move. There are no deferents or epicycles, or even epicycles on
the epicycles. The models of the universe which are based on a moving Earth
are quite accurate and able to predict the behaviors of the planets as
evidence by the fact that we send spacecraft to those planets on a regular
basis.
The theory of a geocentric universe and the theory of epicycles were not
science. It was religious doctrine masked as science.
The church has never really dealt with the reality of the universe very well
. They only apologized for their treatment of Galileo recently and still
refuse to discuss Bruno. The Bible, presumed to be the perfect word of a
perfect God, still teaches that the Earth is flat, rests on pillars (Job 26:
11), and does not move (Psalms 19:5-6 93:1 96:10 104:5).
It seems that some mistakes are destined to be repeated again, despite our
technological prowess.
In 1929, a Cal-Tech astronomer named Edwin Hubble observed that objects
which appeared to be much further away showed a more pronounced shift
towards the red end of the spectrum. Scientists building on Hubble's
discovery concluded that the farther an object was away from Earth, the
faster it was receding, and calculated the relationship between distance and
velocity, called the "Hubble Constant" and concluded on the basis of this
one observed fact and the assumption that there was no other explanation for
that observed fact that the universe was expanding.
Religious circles embraced the idea of an expanding universe because for the
universe to be expanding, then at some point in the past it had to
originate from a single point, called the "Big Bang". Indeed, the concept of
the Big Bang did not originate with Edwin Hubble but was proposed by a
Catholic Monk, Georges Lema tre in 1927, two years before Hubble published
his observations of the Red Shift. The "Big Bang" coincided nicely with
religious doctrine and just as had been the case with epicycles (and despite
the embarrassment thereof) religious institutions sought to encourage this
new model of the universe over all others, including the then prevalent "
steady state" theory.
Then history repeated itself. Evidence surfaced that the "Big Bang" might
not really be a workable theory in the form of General Relativity, and its
postulation that super massive objects would have gravity fields so strong
that even light could not escape, nor would matter be able to differentiate.
Since the entire universe existing in just one spot would be the most super
massive object of all, the universe could not be born.
Needless to say, this suggestion that the Big Bang could not happen provoked
the same exact reaction as the suggestion that the Earth might not be the
center of everything. Instead of questioning the basic assumption, great
effort was made to find a way to evolve the new data in terms acceptable to
the assumption of a universe spawned in a single moment of creation. A
complex Cosmology theory sprang up, encouraged by those invested in the "Big
Bang" to explain why the basic foundational principles of physics behaved
differently in the first few milliseconds of time. The math work is
impressive, as impressive as that which supported the theory of the
epicycles, but it is really just a polite way of saying "The rules just didn
't apply when we need them not to apply".
An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the "Cosmic
Background Radiation", the presumed energy echo from the primordial
explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up. Like Aristotle,
and like Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic Background Radiation assumed
the signal meant what they thought it did and could have no alternative
explanation. The discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation was then
heralded as final proof of the Big Bang theory, and those institutions
invested in that theory celebrated.
But just as the theory of epicycles did not accurately predict the observed
motion of the planets, the Big Bang Theory turned out to be less than
accurate about the radiation signal detected in space.
For one thing, there is the "Horizon Problem". At present, the known
universe spans 28 billion light years and is assumed to be 14 billion years
old. (Obviously unless we actually ARE the center of the universe, it may be
assumed that the universe probably extends even further in at least one
direction). Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is
no way heat radiation could have traveled between the two horizons to even
out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal
equilibrium we see now.
When the satellite COBE was sent up to analyze the Cosmic Background
Radiation, it discovered instead of the smooth featureless glow predicted by
the cosmologists a highly complex and detailed structure. Yet again, rather
than question the prime assumption that the signal being analyzed was
actually from a supposed "Big Bang", research was encouraged to find a way
to fit the data into the existing theory, again on the assumption that the
signal detected could not be from any other source. And yet, an alternative
explanation for the signal was right at hand, indeed literally on all sides.
Our Solar System and planets have heavy elements (without which you would
not be here) because at some time prior to the creation of our Solar System
another star in the immediate vicinity exploded, creating the heavy elements
and scattering them into the universe. Every star that explodes creates a
planetary nebula, such as the one easily seen with amateur telescopes in the
constellation Lyra. A planetary nebula is a bubble of debris in space, and
given the presence of heavy elements in our own Solar System, then somewhere
out in space there must be the tenuous remains of a billions of years old
planetary nebula, the result of the not-so-very-big bang, viewable from our
unique point of view near the center. This model of Earth lying at the
center of the remains of a supernova predicts exactly the sort of structure
that COBE found in the presumed Cosmic Background Radiation. But as was the
case with Galileo and Bruno, challengers to the "approved" creation myths
face a tough time, albeit funding cuts have replaced torture and being
burned alive at the stake.
So pervasive is this bias to see the universe as created in a Biblical-
consistent "Big Bang" that when William G. Tifft submitted his first article
on the quantization of the observed Red Shift to Astrophysical Journal, the
Journal published it because they could not find errors in it, yet still
felt compelled to editorially distance themselves from the conclusions.
The conclusions derived from quantized red shift are devastating to the
conventional view of the universe created in a single Big Bang, as
devastating as Galileo's first telescope was to the theory that the Earth
was the center of the universe.
Georges Lemaître (like Aristotle) assumed there was no other
explanation for the red shift he observed than the motion of the observed
objects relative to Earth. But given the theory that the universe is
expanding uniformly, the amount of red shifts would have to be uniformly and
randomly distributed.
But they aren't.
The observed red shifts in the sky are quantized, falling into discreet
intervals. This is not explained by the theory that the red shift is
produced solely by relative velocity. Some other effect is at work. And that
means that the assumption that the universe is expanding based solely on
the red shift is invalidated. Some other effect IS at work that explains the
observations, quite possibly one that triggers a quantized red shift over
vast distances without respect to relative velocity.
Which means the universe is not expanding. Which means there was no moment
of creation, no "Big Bang" with an epicycle-esque cosmology to explain why
the greatest black hole of all didn't behave like a black hole. Which means
that the background radiation mapped by COBE which didn't quite fit the Big
Bang model is probably the remnant of the stellar explosion that created the
heavy elements making up that computer you are reading this on.
But the lesson for our time of just how much our society remains dominated
by religious superstitions is revealed by the fact that the quantized red-
shift is NOT a new discovery. The first article regarding the observed data
appeared in 1976, a quarter of a century ago. Since then, scientists as much
in the service of superstition as were those scientists who "studied"
epicycles have repeatedly tried to disprove the observations of Tifft and
Cocke, only to confirm and re-confirm the truth, that there is a quantized
red-shift, which casts doubt on the theory of an expanding universe and a "
Big bang" creation.
Yet even though hard evidence exists to warrant a full re-examination of the
basic assumption of the expanding universe, our science classes and TV
programs still promote the "Big Bang" view, just as the erroneous theory of
Aristotle continued to be promoted even after Galileo proved it wrong,
because one theory fits into a theology, and the other does not.
Man's progress is not measured by the reaches of his science but by the
limits of his superstition. The truth is known. But the truth is unpopular.
The assumption that there must be a beginning to the universe is merely a
human invention. We believe that we see things have beginnings and ends
before us, but in truth we are seeing matter change form. A particular
configuration may have a beginning and an end, but that the actual matter
and energy cannot be created or destroyed is an axiom of physics. Miss April
may be only 20 years old, but the atoms in her heavenly body are indeed
heavenly bodies, being the remains of ancient exploded stars, and in THAT
form for billions of years.
Ancients believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. But while
we grudgingly admit that Earth orbits the sun and that our sun is nowhere
near the center of the milky way, the idea that Earth is the center of all
remains at the heart of the assumptions of the Big Bang theory. The "Bangers
" describe the furthest objects we can detect (currently 13 billion light
years) and from that calculate the age of the universe (currently set at 14
billion years).
But that only works if we ASSUME that the Earth is the center for all the
cosmos that we can see. It is true that we are seeing objects out to the
edge of our technological limits
and we are seeing them in all directions. We do not see an obvious end to
the universe. Logically, the odds are far greater than what we can actually
see is really just a tiny bubble in a far larger universe, rather than we
just happen to be that one in googleplex worlds that wound up at the exact
center for the expanding field of debris from the Big Bang (i.e. the
location of the original singlularity). And if we abandon the assumption
that we see most of the the universe from a fortunate position near the
location of the original singlularity, then we cannot really know how large
the universe really is, and the mathematics by which we claim to know the
age based on the size break down completely. We truly are trying to
calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question
of the singularity. The "primordial egg" had to be a super-massive black
hole. Therefore no amount of "bang", no matter how big, is going to thrust
the universe out into, well, the universe.
Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the "
explanation" that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not apply
in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology theory is
that the universe enjoyed a period of "rulelessness" of about 3 seconds,
after which the elements formed and the fundamental forces of the universe,
gravity included, were functioning as we see them today.
Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial egg
turns out to be rather large.
Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the
ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate is found at
http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*1060.
From the mass, you can calculate the diameter of the event horizon by
finding the distance from a point mass that will have an escape velocity of
c. Use sqrt(2GM/r) where M is the mass of the hole (the entire universe in
this case) and r is the radius (classical), and G is the gravitational
constant. Work it backward starting at c and you get c^2=2GM/r.
This works out to an event horizon light years across!
In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim the
universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all fundamental
forces, the entirety of the universe's mass was still well within the event
horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not the product of a true
singularity is irrelevant, Newton's equation provides an equivalent gravity
field for a singularity or a super dense mass in a localized region.
Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have produced
the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the theorists
claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would have come under
the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an escape velocity
exceeding that of light, collapsed back into itself.
The "Bangers" get around this paradox with the theory that when the universe
was created, it had no mass at all. Therefore, so the theory goes, there
was no gravity and no reason the the matter not to escape the bang into the
universe. Then, after the matter was conveniently far away from the
singularity, it interacted with a particle named the Higgs Boson. Like the
two tubes that come with epoxy, the Higgs Boson blended with the massless
matter and produced normal matter with mass. How all the matter in the
universe knew just when to mix the tubes together is still open to
speculation, but usually the proponents of this theory start whispering
about God under their breath at this point.
With the exception of one false alarm out of Fermilab, there has been no
evidence that the Higgs Boson exists. The Large Hadron Collider was built
specifically to look for the Higgs Boson, nicknamed "The God Particle",
thereby revealing the religious agenda that is actually behind what may be
history's most expensive church. It must be pointed out that even if the LHC
, in the unimaginable fury of the high energy collisions it generates,
succeeds in producing a particle that matches the description of the Higgs
Boson (absent a piece of "massless matter" to test it with, how will we know
?) that does not prove such a particle ever existed before, nor does it
prove the Big Bang. The scientist-priests at the LHC will not be able to
prove that their new particle is not itself a creation of the LHC rather
than a part of nature.
Particle physicists like to joke that studying matter with colliders is like
smashing two mechanical clocks together and trying to guess what the clocks
looked like based on the springs, gears, and levers that fly out. Let us
take that analogy one step further and speculate that given enough speed at
the moment of collision, individual teeth from the clock gears will come
flying out as seperate distinct pieces. But clearly, prior to that moment of
collision, they never did exist as seperate distinct pieces. Their
separateness is created by the collision at that very moment. The same may
well be true of the ultra-tiny particles generated by the collisions of the
LHC, including whatever we may be asked to accept on faith as the "God
Particle." They may be artifacts of the collision, and not of natural
processes.
ANOTHER PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
For the purposes of this thought experiment, let us assume that God waved a
magic wand and the universe popped into existence from a Big Bang, and that
"somehow" the universe escaped from it's own gravity well. With the entire 2
.6*1060 mass/energy of the universe confined to that small region, the
temperatures and pressures amount to a super-supernova. We already know that
in the cataclysm of a supernova, the heavier elements are created. That is
where all the heavy elements in your body were created; inside an exploding
star. Therefore, in that moment of super-creation called the Big Bang, as
the universe started to operate by the rules we know today, the expanding
universe should be creating all the known heavy elements.
So, how to explain the Population II stars?
Population II stars are stars with no heavy elements in them. When they
explode at the end of their life cycles, heavy elements are created. These
are swept up by stars that form afterwards creating Population I stars,
usually with planets around them. Population I stars have heavy elements.
Population II stars do not.
If the Big Bang had happened, the universe would be filled with heavy
elements created in those first few moments the universe started to operate
under the rules of physics we know today. There should not be any stars in
existence devoid of those heavy elements. And yet there are.
The existence of Population II stars, devoid of heavy elements, directly
contradicts the theory of the Big Bang.
YET ANOTHER PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
The Big Bang is currently imagined to have occurred 14 billion years ago.
The farthest object seen in the sky by the Hubble and Keck Telescopes is 13
billion light-years distant, and is assumed to have been created when the
universe was just 750 million years old. It would take at least that long (
if not longer) for the material from the theorized Big Bang to coalesce into
stars and for those stars to form a rotating galaxy.
But here is the problem. We are seeing that object 13 billion light-years
distant not as it is today and where it is today but as it was and where it
was, 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light-years distant from earth.
In other words, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away from
Earth only 750 million years after the Big Bang, it would have had to travel
13 billion light years in just 750 million years' time. That requires the
galaxy in question to travel more than 17 times faster than the speed of
light, a speed limit which according to the Big Bang supporters was in
effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old.
AN INTRIGUING QUESTION
We see in the night sky that all galaxies rotate. Stars rotate. Planets
rotate. Bodies orbit around other bodies. A dimensionless singularity
posited by the Big Bang cannot have rotation. So where did all this angular
momentum come from if the universe emerged from the Big Bang singularity?
For that matter, how do we get a variation in velocity or density emerging
from a singularity
UPDATES: In 2011, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN was finally switched on
in the experiment it was built to carry out; to prove the existance of the
Higgs Boson, the hypothetical particle necessary to reconcile the Big Bang
with Special Relativity. CERN concluded that the Higgs particle does not in
fact exist. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics went to three American
scientists who demonstrated that the rate of expansion in the expanding
universe is accelerating. Even taken at face value, this means some other
force is at work other than the initial impetus of the supposed moment of
creation. Something else is being seen and possibly misinterpreted! It is
time to question the prime assumption that the observed red shift in the sky
is attributable only to relative velocity.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php
【在 l******t 的大作中提到】
: 第一次听说宇宙大爆炸是宗教理论的。小时候踢你头的驴还健在不？
|
a***n
发帖数: 3633 | 24 这个事正解。应用很花钱，而搞理论夸张点说给文具就行了。连资料
当年都是盗版影印的。如今小屁孩们如果对技术感兴趣，起步就可以
是单片机，涡喷航模，当年哪有这个条件？能搞矿石收音机就不错了。
搞理论的更大的楷模就是陈景润，80年代红的都是那种用只用笔就可以
出成果的人。
【在 r******y 的大作中提到】
: 搞理论和搞应用没什么矛盾吧。搞应用是要花大钱的。养几个搞理论的花钱对一个国家
: 来说忽略不计。
: 搞东西不能只搞表面上有用的，很多理论发现的时侯没什么用，过一百年有大用。
: 神学是否需要和理论是否科学没有必然关系。没听说只有受神学界得批判/抵制才是科
: 学的。
:
: 电/
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 25 Is the Big-Bang a Religious Hoax?
Huascar Terra do Valle
Science is the opposite of religion. Right? No! Wrong! Religion is always
trying to infiltrate into religion. Sometimes it succeeds. For instance, in
the Big Bang theory.
Today it is almost unanimous among the orthodox astronomers and astrophysics
that the world was created some 12 billions ago from a magnificent
explosion of a primodial atom. In a few seconds, as the theory goes, all the
universe was created from this primordial explosion. From the energy of
this fantastic explosion all matter has been created, according to Einstein'
s theory that matter is energy and vice-versa. Even space and time have been
created by this explosion.
There are some astronomers, as Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold and Herman Bondi,
that don't accept the Big Bang theory. They rather believe in a steady-state
universe. Regretfully they are the losers in the academic establishment.
To some nonbelievers, like me, the Big Bang theory seems just a disguised
version of the Bible creation, when Jehovah said "Fiat Lux", and the
universe was created. So far as I am concerned, in spite of the beautiful
mathematical formulas of the scholars, I can't accept that this
indescribably immense universe has been originated from a single atom (or
from a fireball the size of a baseball), all of a sudden, out of nothing. I
would rather believe in Santa Claus.
How did such strange idea infiltrate into science? Science began some
centuries before Christ, in Classical Greece, when some brilliant minds
began to analyse the world free from the shackles of religion. Pitagoras
discovered that mathematics rule the world. Leucippus and Democritus figured
out that all matter is made of atoms. Hippocrates and Galen robbed Medicine
from the priests. Aristaco de Samos found out that the Earth revolves
around the Sun and not otherwise. Another Greek scholar measured the
distance from the Earth to the Moon and missed by only 200 kilometers.
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle abandoned the fables of Greek Mythology in
favor of secular Philosophy.
Unfortunately this wonderful beginning was checked by the wide acceptance of
the Christian cosmology based in the Bible. Europe remained in the
intellectual darkness of Christendom for more than a millennium. The world
was only to be awakened by the study of the pagan Greek classics (
Renaissance and Humanism).
During more than a millennium the Roman Church has been accustomed to being
owner of the truth. The Bible and the pope were declared infallible and
those who dared to disagree were considered heretics and condemned to
terrible tortures before being sent to the stake. This happened, among
thousands, to Giordano Bruno, in the year 1600.
The Church didn't like when, after the Renaissance and after the religious
liberty provided by the Protestant revolution, science exploded, explaining
all the phenomena of nature without the help of the Bible, not to say of a
god. Much to the contrary! Among dozens of discoveries that defied the
authority of the Bible, Copernicus and Galileo dethroned the Earth from the
center of the universe and Darwin showed that there are not fixed species
and that man, instead of being a replica of God, is just a sophisticated ape.
It has not been comfortable for the Catholic Church to lose her authority as
a source of truth. The Church never accepted being relegated to a second
position. The Roman Church, under the guidance of Pope Pius XI, decided that
she could no longer remain away from the debate of the origin of the
universe. After all, she had the age-old cosmology of the Genesis to defend.
In the 20's a conference on Cosmology was held in the Vatican, in the
Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma. The intention was that the Vatican
should have a word in the academic establishment on scientific matters. The
pope Pius XI decided that the Church had also to make science within the
Vatican. Georges Lemaître, a monk with a great knowledge on theology
and mathematics, was designated to study Einstein's and other scientist's
ideas, with the explicit intention of selling the Roman Church's cosmology.
In 1927 Lemaître, inspired by the Bible's cosmology, developed a theory
that the universe began from an explosion of a "primordial atom" (whatever
it is). George Gamow follow suit developing the idea that all the
constituents of the universe have been created in the first few minutes
after the big bang, and Alan Guth, from Cornell University, authored the
inflation theory of the Universe, according to which "the entire universe is
supposed to have grown from an almost infinitesimal bubble of space, only
one trillionth the size of a proton" (apud Herbert Friedman, "The Astronomer
's Universe", 1998). Certainly both scientists swallowed Lemaître's
bait and gave scientific credibility to the Bible version by elaborating on
the beginning of the universe through a primordial explosion.
Hawking also helped to advance the Bible's Cosmology with his "singularity"
theory. In 1975 he was rewarded by the pope with a medal.
Another scientist that swallowed Lemaître's bait was Bernard Lovell who
, innocently, concluded that the creation of matter, in the big bang, could
only be effective by the power of an external factor, god himself! He failed
to explain how god was created.
Einstein was decidedly against the idea of the Big Bang. His equations have
concluded that the universe had to be either in expansion or in contraction,
but he didn't believe his own equations, because he was a supporter of a
stable vision of the cosmos. He created a "cosmological constant" (a counter
-gravity force) not to abandon his equations. Later he abandoned this theory.
The impasse between the Big Bang and the steady-state theory was broken when
Hubble found out that the universe is in expansion. Einstein was shocked by
the expanding universe demonstrated by the findings of Edwin Hubble. Lema&#
238;tre saw this as a great opportunity and rushed to California. In the
early 1930s, as reported by Timothy Ferris (The Whole Shebang, 1997), in a
lecture in the library of Mt. Wilson observatory offices, Lemaître
declared solemnly to an audience which included Einstein: "In the beginning
of everything we had fireworks of unimaginable beauty. Then there was the
explosion followed by the filling of heavens with smoke. We come to late to
do more than to visualize the splendor of creation's' birthday." Not even
Moses would be so eloquent. Lemaître's oratory was so brilliant that
even Einstein became convinced by this new version of the biblical cosmology.
Unbelievingly, after resisting for a long time, Einstein, and most of the
scientific establishment, capitulated to the idea of the Big Bang by the
influence of no less than a monk: George Lemaître.
This Catholic monk succeeded in infiltrating into the secular science the
preposterous idea of a Biblical universe being created out of nothing. By
who? By God, naturally! Congratulations to Abée Lemaître. Once more
religion defeated science. Not for long, we hope!
Finally, a quotation from Joseph Silk (COSMIC ENIGMAS, 1994): "In many
respects, the Big Bang is to modern cosmology what mythology was to the
ancients. To believe that we understand the very early Universe, the first
microseconds of cosmic time, requires immense faith in the physicist's
search for the ultimate union of fundamental forces of nature, because
direct evidence is completely lacking."
The very essence of the big bang theory is "FAITH", that is, religion!
己的无知骂人，你又无耻了。
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 没听说过是你自己无知。这只能说明你是个很容易被骗的无知之徒， 你又要凭你自己的无知骂人，你又无耻了。
: 揭露 BIG-BANG 是披着科学外衣的宗教，这在10年前就有很多文章了。
: THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE
: by Michael Rivero
: Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was this guy named Aristotle.
: Pretty sharp fellow; he thought up a lot of good things. But, occasionally
: he made a mistake.
: One mistake he made was to toss an orange up in the air and watch it come
: straight back down to his hand. Aristotle reasoned that if he was moving,
: the orange would have flown off to one side as soon as it left his hand.
|
r********n
发帖数: 7441 | 26 你要想批判别人，自己也得做作功课，至少目前为止，宇宙大爆炸从科学观测上还是站
得住脚的，宇宙星系光谱红移+多谱勒效应
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 八十年代89年以前，方励之就是拿着宇宙大爆炸理论到处到全国各大城市名校演讲，很
: 多青年学生以为是方发明了这宇宙大爆炸理论。 后来到了美国后才发现这宇宙大爆炸
: 理论是西方宗教人士发明的，而且是老掉牙的烂货。 只可惜89年后邓产党只批方的西
: 化论没有批方在物理学上的错误，以致还有很多大中学生上当在宇宙大爆炸这种伪科学
: 上浪费青春。
|
s****r
发帖数: 31686 | 27 由此可见 把 一切毛轮 ， 毛主义信徒 赶出科技界的必要性了
【在 r********n 的大作中提到】
: 你要想批判别人，自己也得做作功课，至少目前为止，宇宙大爆炸从科学观测上还是站
: 得住脚的，宇宙星系光谱红移+多谱勒效应
|
h******t
发帖数: 872 | 28 文革期间， 相对论在中国被批为资产阶级理论。。。胡爷爷: 当然这也不丢人现眼。
you need to pay if you need more education on physics. |
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 29 早就有人说过了，你们就是不爱听，你们就连维基的那段文章也没读完，对吧？
【在 r********n 的大作中提到】
: 你要想批判别人，自己也得做作功课，至少目前为止，宇宙大爆炸从科学观测上还是站
: 得住脚的，宇宙星系光谱红移+多谱勒效应
|
r********n
发帖数: 7441 | 30 我想确切说应该是恒星系上的氢氦铁（？）等宇宙星体普遍存在的元素在高温聚变反应中释
放出来的特征光谱的红移，由相对论和多谱勒效应推出各自相互远离
如果错了，请纠正
【在 r********n 的大作中提到】
: 你要想批判别人，自己也得做作功课，至少目前为止，宇宙大爆炸从科学观测上还是站
: 得住脚的，宇宙星系光谱红移+多谱勒效应
|
|
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 31 你有没有读完你自己贴的维基的那段文字阿？
【在 h******t 的大作中提到】
: 文革期间， 相对论在中国被批为资产阶级理论。。。胡爷爷: 当然这也不丢人现眼。
: you need to pay if you need more education on physics.
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 32 揭露 BIG-BANG 是穿这科学外衣的文章很多，我选了两篇贴上了，这帮骂人的 ID 不
能力来批驳，除了骂人还是骂人。 |
s****r
发帖数: 31686 | 33 你转行搞 哥德巴赫 猜想应该很有前途， 可以向中科院数学所投稿啊
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 揭露 BIG-BANG 是穿这科学外衣的文章很多，我选了两篇贴上了，这帮骂人的 ID 不
: 能力来批驳，除了骂人还是骂人。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 34 你先说说下面这句话啥意思吧？
“The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its
agreement with observations”
【在 h******t 的大作中提到】
: 文革期间， 相对论在中国被批为资产阶级理论。。。胡爷爷: 当然这也不丢人现眼。
: you need to pay if you need more education on physics.
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 35 “宇宙大爆炸从科学观测上还是站得住脚的”， 你也该拿出站得住脚的证据来啊。
【在 r********n 的大作中提到】
: 你要想批判别人，自己也得做作功课，至少目前为止，宇宙大爆炸从科学观测上还是站
: 得住脚的，宇宙星系光谱红移+多谱勒效应
|
h******t
发帖数: 872 | 36 "you need to pay if you need more education on physics."
got it? no more comments for you. peroid. |
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 37 没错，我以前是学数学的，还等着你来推荐。
【在 s****r 的大作中提到】
: 你转行搞 哥德巴赫 猜想应该很有前途， 可以向中科院数学所投稿啊
|
s****r
发帖数: 31686 | 38 你是好汉， 没必要依靠任何人推荐。 哥德巴赫猜想就靠你了
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 没错，我以前是学数学的，还等着你来推荐。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 39 “The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its
agreement with observations”
这句话是你贴的维基的文章里最后一段的一句，你不需要物理专业知识你就应该能翻译成中文
，对吧？
【在 h******t 的大作中提到】
: "you need to pay if you need more education on physics."
: got it? no more comments for you. peroid.
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 40 这个 BIG-BANG 和 推广转基因的是同一条套路， 他们都拿不出证据， 但只要有罗辑
思辩能力的人就可发现他们这些理论的谎谬。 |
|
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 41 错了，这世界有很多比哥德巴赫猜想更为重要的问题有待解决。
【在 s****r 的大作中提到】
: 你是好汉， 没必要依靠任何人推荐。 哥德巴赫猜想就靠你了
|
g*******2
发帖数: 1184 | 42 谁告诉你不可比的?
宇宙大爆炸理论比进化论的科学基础更加严密
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 是啊，如果只是老方他自己一个人关在房子里闭关参悟宇宙大爆炸理论，我也没有意见
: ， 可当年他可是到处在全国各大城市的名校吹捧这个“理论”的，你知道很多青少年
: 是很容易被他骗得。
: 另外，你起码也该承认，这宇宙大爆炸和进化论是完全不可比的吧？
|
l**k
发帖数: 45267 | 43 反正没一个你能解决的，再重要也跟你没关系了
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 错了，这世界有很多比哥德巴赫猜想更为重要的问题有待解决。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 44 哪你又能解决啥问题呀？ 重不重要跟你又有啥关系了？
【在 l**k 的大作中提到】
: 反正没一个你能解决的，再重要也跟你没关系了
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 45 满嘴跑火车的又来了。
【在 g*******2 的大作中提到】
: 谁告诉你不可比的?
: 宇宙大爆炸理论比进化论的科学基础更加严密
|
l**k
发帖数: 45267 | 46 也没有一个我能解决的，所以我不会装作对能解决这些问题中任何一个的牛人不屑一顾
的样子
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 满嘴跑火车的又来了。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 47 你的意思是说这些问题已经解决了？
我只是对那些冒充能解决这些问题的人不宵啊，真正能解决这些问题的人还没有诞生 （或者或还没脱颖而出）。
【在 l**k 的大作中提到】
: 也没有一个我能解决的，所以我不会装作对能解决这些问题中任何一个的牛人不屑一顾
: 的样子
|
s****r
发帖数: 31686 | 48 那你先去北京营救袭来吧
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 错了，这世界有很多比哥德巴赫猜想更为重要的问题有待解决。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 49 唉呀，你难道是我老婆？
【在 s****r 的大作中提到】
: 那你先去北京营救袭来吧
|
s*******l
发帖数: 597 | 50 big-bang科不科学不用文章多少，真有明确的证明一篇就够了。别说‘揭露 BIG-BANG
是穿这科学外衣的文章很多’，就是反相对论，进化论的文章也很多，有用么？
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 揭露 BIG-BANG 是穿这科学外衣的文章很多，我选了两篇贴上了，这帮骂人的 ID 不
: 能力来批驳，除了骂人还是骂人。
|
|
|
l**k
发帖数: 45267 | 51 嗯，然后你装作自己就快要脱颖而出似的，对先行的牛人投去了充满自我优越性的一瞥
（或者或还没脱颖而出）。
一顾
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 你的意思是说这些问题已经解决了？
: 我只是对那些冒充能解决这些问题的人不宵啊，真正能解决这些问题的人还没有诞生 （或者或还没脱颖而出）。
|
h******8
发帖数: 3778 | 52 这个西格尔粒子的提出似乎是违反剃刀原则的
还有纯轻核组成的恒星怎么用大爆炸解释?
哈勃的数据是有人质疑的，
我不是专家，但是纯拍砖不是科学的态度 |
H********o
发帖数: 3625 | 53 泥马。关于big bang的炸药奖都发了至少两个。你还在嚷嚷要证据？
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: “宇宙大爆炸从科学观测上还是站得住脚的”， 你也该拿出站得住脚的证据来啊。
|
h******8
发帖数: 3778 | |
G**L
发帖数: 22804 | 55 老掉牙的烂货现在被什么代替了？
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 八十年代89年以前，方励之就是拿着宇宙大爆炸理论到处到全国各大城市名校演讲，很
: 多青年学生以为是方发明了这宇宙大爆炸理论。 后来到了美国后才发现这宇宙大爆炸
: 理论是西方宗教人士发明的，而且是老掉牙的烂货。 只可惜89年后邓产党只批方的西
: 化论没有批方在物理学上的错误，以致还有很多大中学生上当在宇宙大爆炸这种伪科学
: 上浪费青春。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 56 就像达赖喇嘛得炸药奖的原因一样： 因为政治和宗教的需要。
【在 h******8 的大作中提到】
: 炸药奖＝真理？
: 炸药奖＝不容置疑？
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | |
G**L
发帖数: 22804 | 58 你不是专家，你觉得似乎违反有可信度吗，给你解释你能听懂吗，有人质疑就表示是错
误的吗？
【在 h******8 的大作中提到】
: 这个西格尔粒子的提出似乎是违反剃刀原则的
: 还有纯轻核组成的恒星怎么用大爆炸解释?
: 哈勃的数据是有人质疑的，
: 我不是专家，但是纯拍砖不是科学的态度
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 59 难道还有人否认 BIG-BANG 的宗教背景吗？
in
astrophysics
the
Einstein'
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: Is the Big-Bang a Religious Hoax?
: Huascar Terra do Valle
: Science is the opposite of religion. Right? No! Wrong! Religion is always
: trying to infiltrate into religion. Sometimes it succeeds. For instance, in
: the Big Bang theory.
: Today it is almost unanimous among the orthodox astronomers and astrophysics
: that the world was created some 12 billions ago from a magnificent
: explosion of a primodial atom. In a few seconds, as the theory goes, all the
: universe was created from this primordial explosion. From the energy of
: this fantastic explosion all matter has been created, according to Einstein'
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 60 要听懂很容易，只要心里有上帝存在，这个 BIG—BANG 就很好理解了。
【在 G**L 的大作中提到】
: 你不是专家，你觉得似乎违反有可信度吗，给你解释你能听懂吗，有人质疑就表示是错
: 误的吗？
|
|
|
G**L
发帖数: 22804 | 61 你听懂了吗？
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 要听懂很容易，只要心里有上帝存在，这个 BIG—BANG 就很好理解了。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 62 我一到教堂就懂，一出来就不懂。
【在 G**L 的大作中提到】
: 你听懂了吗？
|
G**L
发帖数: 22804 | 63 你认为有多少天体物理学家是像你这样认同大爆炸的？
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 我一到教堂就懂，一出来就不懂。
|
h******8
发帖数: 3778 | 64 如果有解释，愿闻其详，不懂可以问可以学
我说了这个理论是错误的吗？
我只是质疑
【在 G**L 的大作中提到】
: 你不是专家，你觉得似乎违反有可信度吗，给你解释你能听懂吗，有人质疑就表示是错
: 误的吗？
|
a*****s
发帖数: 2663 | |
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 66 你这堂堂正正科班出身的科学家，唯一的本事就是骂人，有了你给科学增光不少。
【在 a*****s 的大作中提到】
: 狗日的民科搞阴毛论总是很有天赋啊!
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 67 本版这些 宇宙大爆炸的拥护者，大多也就听方励之吹过牛，对 BIG-BANG 的来龙去脉
和那些原文从来就没看过，一上来除了骂人啥道理也不会讲。
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 八十年代89年以前，方励之就是拿着宇宙大爆炸理论到处到全国各大城市名校演讲，很
: 多青年学生以为是方发明了这宇宙大爆炸理论。 后来到了美国后才发现这宇宙大爆炸
: 理论是西方宗教人士发明的，而且是老掉牙的烂货。 只可惜89年后邓产党只批方的西
: 化论没有批方在物理学上的错误，以致还有很多大中学生上当在宇宙大爆炸这种伪科学
: 上浪费青春。
|
k*********g
发帖数: 700 | 68 宇宙大爆炸理论 是印度人提出来的，好不好？
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 八十年代89年以前，方励之就是拿着宇宙大爆炸理论到处到全国各大城市名校演讲，很
: 多青年学生以为是方发明了这宇宙大爆炸理论。 后来到了美国后才发现这宇宙大爆炸
: 理论是西方宗教人士发明的，而且是老掉牙的烂货。 只可惜89年后邓产党只批方的西
: 化论没有批方在物理学上的错误，以致还有很多大中学生上当在宇宙大爆炸这种伪科学
: 上浪费青春。
|
a****a
发帖数: 5763 | 69 ...
你说是湿婆时代
【在 k*********g 的大作中提到】
: 宇宙大爆炸理论 是印度人提出来的，好不好？
|
k*********g
发帖数: 700 | 70 晕，我是说真的。
印度佬搞了这么个理论，科学界人士把他当神棍批了十几年。
后来发现微波背景辐射，科学家们才重新把这个理论找回来。
【在 a****a 的大作中提到】
: ...
: 你说是湿婆时代
|
|
|
s*****V
发帖数: 21731 | |
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 72 笑死啊，还拿十万个为什来吓唬人。
【在 s*****V 的大作中提到】
: 啥都不懂就不要在这里胡扯了，3K宇宙微波背景辐射听说过么？ 十万个为什么上面就
: 有，回去翻翻吧。
|
s*****V
发帖数: 21731 | 73 YOUTUBE上面那种民科东西要少看，很多人连进化论都反对。另外，你搞了这半天是不
是第一次听说微波背景辐射？
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 笑死啊，还拿十万个为什来吓唬人。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 74 10 前我就听说过了，我也不想再为这等无聊的事浪费时间，只是方励之又把这事拉出
来了。
【在 s*****V 的大作中提到】
: YOUTUBE上面那种民科东西要少看，很多人连进化论都反对。另外，你搞了这半天是不
: 是第一次听说微波背景辐射？
|
s*****V
发帖数: 21731 | 75 既然如此你总结几条，那个视频怎么解释宇宙微波背景辐射，宇宙膨胀，哈勃定律的？
？？
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 10 前我就听说过了，我也不想再为这等无聊的事浪费时间，只是方励之又把这事拉出
: 来了。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 76 你自以为专家，不如你自己去看看，然后批驳给大家听听？
【在 s*****V 的大作中提到】
: 既然如此你总结几条，那个视频怎么解释宇宙微波背景辐射，宇宙膨胀，哈勃定律的？
: ？？
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 77 其实，你要证明 BIG—BANG，最主要的是要说明为啥会发生 BIG-BANG， 只要这个为什
么说不清，这个 BIG-BANG 就缺可信性。当然神棍们很容易来解答这个问题。
【在 s*****V 的大作中提到】
: 既然如此你总结几条，那个视频怎么解释宇宙微波背景辐射，宇宙膨胀，哈勃定律的？
: ？？
|
s*****V
发帖数: 21731 | 78 你自己发出这么惊世骇俗的言论，当然自己证明。 否则就好比，往人堆里扔了一块砖
，然后抱着头跑了
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 你自以为专家，不如你自己去看看，然后批驳给大家听听？
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 79 看来你也不是专家，不同的就是你选择相信。
但我已经把选择不信的理由列出来了，因为这个理论自相矛盾无法自圆其说，我认为这
就够了。
【在 s*****V 的大作中提到】
: 你自己发出这么惊世骇俗的言论，当然自己证明。 否则就好比，往人堆里扔了一块砖
: ，然后抱着头跑了
|
s*****V
发帖数: 21731 | 80 没看到你的理由，既然你是相信的，稍微总结一下总是可以的吧
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 看来你也不是专家，不同的就是你选择相信。
: 但我已经把选择不信的理由列出来了，因为这个理论自相矛盾无法自圆其说，我认为这
: 就够了。
|
|
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 81 你乱套了，我是不相信这个 BIG-BANG 的，因为我看到这个理论是自相矛盾的，我就没
必要再看下去。 你看看 23 楼的那个总结就应该够了。
你既然相信这个 BIG-BANG， 那还不如请你说说为啥会发生 BIG-BANG？
【在 s*****V 的大作中提到】
: 没看到你的理由，既然你是相信的，稍微总结一下总是可以的吧
|
s*****V
发帖数: 21731 | 82 三九，你自己玩吧，大爆炸不是不能质疑，关键要言之有据。看看哥白尼质疑地心说的
书，那才是真正做学问的态度。
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 你乱套了，我是不相信这个 BIG-BANG 的，因为我看到这个理论是自相矛盾的，我就没
: 必要再看下去。 你看看 23 楼的那个总结就应该够了。
: 你既然相信这个 BIG-BANG， 那还不如请你说说为啥会发生 BIG-BANG？
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 83 废话，我要有时间有钱我当然可以去科学完整地质疑。
当然，我也可以送你一句话，大爆炸不是不可以去信，但要以批判的态度去接收，看看
爱因斯坦那才是真正地做学问。
【在 s*****V 的大作中提到】
: 三九，你自己玩吧，大爆炸不是不能质疑，关键要言之有据。看看哥白尼质疑地心说的
: 书，那才是真正做学问的态度。
|
G**L
发帖数: 22804 | 84 因为不能说明为啥会发生，所以大爆炸就是错的。
这根无法找到第一推动力就说牛顿万有引力是错的一样。
估计就是你去教堂，有人要拉你入教提了大爆炸，你才听说过的吧？
你要批方励之说的大爆炸，你起码也得是个物理专业的。何祚庥当年批相对论都比你有
资格。
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: 其实，你要证明 BIG—BANG，最主要的是要说明为啥会发生 BIG-BANG， 只要这个为什
: 么说不清，这个 BIG-BANG 就缺可信性。当然神棍们很容易来解答这个问题。
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 85 “For almost a century, the Universe has been known to be expanding as a
consequence of the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. However, the
discovery that this expansion is accelerating is astounding. If the
expansion will continue to speed up the Universe will end in ice.
The acceleration is thought to be driven by dark energy, but what that dark
energy is remains an enigma - perhaps the greatest in physics today. What is
known is that dark energy constitutes about three quarters of the Universe.
Therefore the findings of the 2011 Nobel Laureates in Physics have helped
to unveil a Universe that to a large extent is unknown to science. And
everything is possible again.”
dark energy？ 还不如简单说是“鬼”！
【在 G**L 的大作中提到】
: 因为不能说明为啥会发生，所以大爆炸就是错的。
: 这根无法找到第一推动力就说牛顿万有引力是错的一样。
: 估计就是你去教堂，有人要拉你入教提了大爆炸，你才听说过的吧？
: 你要批方励之说的大爆炸，你起码也得是个物理专业的。何祚庥当年批相对论都比你有
: 资格。
|
G**L
发帖数: 22804 | 86 民科就不用杞人忧天了。该干嘛干嘛去吧
dark
is
Universe.
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: “For almost a century, the Universe has been known to be expanding as a
: consequence of the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. However, the
: discovery that this expansion is accelerating is astounding. If the
: expansion will continue to speed up the Universe will end in ice.
: The acceleration is thought to be driven by dark energy, but what that dark
: energy is remains an enigma - perhaps the greatest in physics today. What is
: known is that dark energy constitutes about three quarters of the Universe.
: Therefore the findings of the 2011 Nobel Laureates in Physics have helped
: to unveil a Universe that to a large extent is unknown to science. And
: everything is possible again.”
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 87 “Therefore the findings of the 2011 Nobel Laureates in Physics have helped
to unveil a Universe that to a large extent is unknown to science. And
everything is possible again.”
everything is possible again！
你到底懂不懂？
【在 G**L 的大作中提到】
: 民科就不用杞人忧天了。该干嘛干嘛去吧
:
: dark
: is
: Universe.
|
h*****9
发帖数: 6643 | 88 难以自圆其说。。。
dark
is
Universe.
【在 h*****9 的大作中提到】
: “For almost a century, the Universe has been known to be expanding as a
: consequence of the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. However, the
: discovery that this expansion is accelerating is astounding. If the
: expansion will continue to speed up the Universe will end in ice.
: The acceleration is thought to be driven by dark energy, but what that dark
: energy is remains an enigma - perhaps the greatest in physics today. What is
: known is that dark energy constitutes about three quarters of the Universe.
: Therefore the findings of the 2011 Nobel Laureates in Physics have helped
: to unveil a Universe that to a large extent is unknown to science. And
: everything is possible again.”
|
