Who believes in the Big bang scientific creation myth? I understand a lot of my atheist friends put their faith in it.
I have alread start a post with discussion in another group. Please feel free to go to that discussion and view over and continue discussion there.
The "lighthouse effect" understanding, gives for causation of red shift caused by a light source that is spinning or rotating. The light leaves light house creating the shape of a spiral
Stars spin and have rotation causing a lot of the light leaving the star to produce the lighthouse effect. Observers far from light source observe the spiral arms expanding without taking into account for lighthouse effect causation.
Observation of red shift at a distance and not taking into consideration the causation, the lighthouse effect, will give an apparence of what is called "spacetime" expansion.
"I started discussion with @ and as mentioned, start a post."
Please enlighten me with your Big Bang knowledge.
The Big Bang myth is a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded industry. The people it benefits financially will do everything they can to keep the industry funded.
@yvilletom How is the Big Bang an industry?
@Alienbeing How does your dictionary define “industry”?
@yvilletom Probably the same way yours does. I don't see an industry in a theory, but I do see your wise guy reply.
@Alienbeing Your omitting "myth" when you asked "How is the Big Bang an industry?" bothered me.
@yvilletom So what were you referring to when you used the word "myth".
I learned how to use a law library; you can learn how to use a library I use.
Visit [thunderbolts.info] and search on “big bang” and “myth”.
Stretch your mind by investigating [aureon.ca]
@yvilletom I have something you can stretch. I guess you can't back up your remark and I really don't care that much.
@Alienbeing You see my wise guy reply? I see your rude reply.
Few people here understand the scientific method.
An observation stirs curiosity
Make a testable hypothesis.
Test that hypothesis.
If the evidence supports your hypothesis, brag.
Otherwise, lie.
I think the Universe, or what I call Tao, might be the original and only Universe. Expansion has created a vast, dead, calmness in which only time and electrons exist. Time creates a magnetic stream within the calmness and electrons clump together by poles to create networks which imagine all that we think is real. Suffering is opposite of calm and it is the method used for these electrons to ask why (which leads some to glimpse truth by feeling connection to the calm). How that Tao began would be impossible to speculate on so becomes the unknowable aspect of Tao.
What evidence do you have that tao exist?
@xenoview Tao is a concept which, I think, basically means the unifying point. Universal expansion has been noted and is accepted scientific belief so the idea that the unifying point is that Universe is not revolutionary. The question becomes how did ours form within a dead Universe? I postulate that it didn't. Our Universe exists only in the electromagnetic exchanges of those electrons. Niels Bohr's observations might be worth reviewing as some kind of evidence, though.
What Existed Before The Big Bang?
We don't know what existed before the Bib Bang.
More importantly... What did'nt exist?
If time began at the Big Bang, there was no 'before the Big Bang'.
There's all sorts of theories about what the Big Bang originated from, some might even be testable:
The only problem with the BBT is that there had to be something before that happened, they really need a theory to prove or disprove what was before the BBT.
If we believe that time originated with the Big Bang, the idea of "before" doesn't even apply.
My understanding is the "big bang theory" has always been just that a theory. Science doesn't use words like faith in any working theories, and I'd challenge you to prove otherwise. I don't follow all the latest news or discoveries in the scientific community too much but I thought they came to the big bang theory through measuring the distance light has traveled. So through that measurement, light that traveled the furthest is likely the oldest and the point of origin of all light. Sorry I'm dumbing this down and I'm also not qualified nor educated on the subject matter thus is just my simple understanding. I've also heard the theory that says the universe is a never ending cycle of the big bang then the universe collapsing in on itself again and again. I've covered this in a post about Naturalistic nihilism before. In my opinion calling the scientific process a "creation myth" is disingenuous and very misleading. To make such a statement I assume you have a degree in Astro physics or any other type of physics degree. If not do you really consider yourself qualified enough to call theories "belief" "myth"and "faith"?
We already covered that in comments below.
. . . I think it prudent to NOT use the word(s) prove/proof in 'discussions' about science. Apart from math science doesn't prove anything, there is always doubt/error-bars/new-info (science CAN convincingly discredit some things).
. . . also, use of the phrase "just a theory" in these discussions is a passive acquiescence to the use of that exact phrase wrt evolution being "just a theory"
If the greatest, most agile minds in humankind have wrestled, and are wrestling, with these ideas, why should we think a fuckhead like you has any of the answers?