The Theory Of Big Bangism, Entropy, Bonds, Bush, Quarks, The Quantum and Everything Likening the Big Bang's ineffable efficacy to that of Barry Bonds and GW Bush. Who and what came first, and how and why? Who do we know took drugs illegally and whom do the racists wish took them, and why was the one we know took illegal drugs and lied never indicted and the one that we don't know took them, nor lied, was? 1)-The first law of physics, matter can neither be created, nor destroyed. 2)-Before the Big Bang*, there was nothing, not even space. " Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions: There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist before the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Before the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we." 3)-Then the dust and debris, the gases came together forming a mass a singularity, which caved in upon itself sucking into it all matter, to a point of inconceivable, infinite, density, a Black hole which began to compress upon itself to a density which under such enormous unprecedented pressure, imploded and exploded, send the debris across the space that did not exist. 1A/2A)-So, then, no matter, no space, from whence came the dust, debris and gases? 3A)-Really? So, why are not all the Black Holes we now claim to know about are imploding/exploding to form universes with this universe and thereby destroying our universe? * "Big Bang Theory - The Premise: The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones, which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory." "Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory? Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations.... For instance, I can construct you an spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.... You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view, there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." 4 In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above's Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm, which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfven, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.
"Big Bang Theory - What About God? Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else, which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question." "Origin of the Universe - Theism vs. Atheism In general, theists attributes the origin of the universe to some sort of transcendent, intelligent Designer. Atheists envision a natural, undirected process by which universes spring into existence spontaneously. Before the 20th century, most atheists believed the universe was eternal. This changed however as discoveries throughout the 20th Century rendered that view untenable. Einstein's theory of gravity (which has been thoroughly validated by extensive experimental confirmation) and Hubble's astronomical observations preclude an eternal universe. We now know beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe began at some point in the finite past. Now we understand that there are only two legitimate options for the origin of the universe: (1) Someone made the universe (Intelligent Design), or (2) The universe made itself (Random Chance). The third option, the universe has always been here, is no longer a feasible alternative -- it contradicts empirical science. No other scientifically plausible theories for the origin of the universe have ever been proposed.
Origin of the Universe - The Inflation Universe Theories The Big Bang Theory provided an atheistic explanation for the origin of the universe, but its obvious simplicity was subject to multiple attacks. As a result, the original theory is no longer the dominant scientific explanation for the atheistic origin of the universe. While the original Big Bang Theory is now "dead," from its ashes have emerged the various Inflationary Universe Theories (IUTs). Starting with Alan Guth in the late 1990's (The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins), the scientific community has now proposed roughly 50 different IUT variants. Scientists hope that one of the current IUTs will sire an accurate reconstruction of the birth of our universe, though it is universally acknowledged that all of the current IUTs have their problems. It seems the only way to get realistic calculations to match an IUT model is to make assumptions that are poorly justified." All of the above in small type is from All About Science: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ Darwinism: Evolution: Creatures-Man, develop only skills, physiology, habits which either allow them to survive or perish as a species. Those, which adapt, if they have to, survive, perhaps prosper. Those, which do not, perish. Unnecessary skills, physiology, habits, do not appear because they do not further or enhance existence/survival. Inspiration by music, art, literature, sound, love, altruism, which furthers neither the species nor self-survival. Singular acts of altruism, are counter to the survival of the species. Love is counterproductive to survival of the self. Affection is only productive in the act of sexual intercourse, which procreates the survival of the species, not from the moment after sexual intercourse nor any period following that event. War is counter productive to survival of the species. Polygamy is productive mathematically to the survival of the species and to the raising of children, especially in the cases of illness, death or other loss of a mother. Now we have an Entropic universe, the quantum, quarks, Barry Bonds and GW Bush. What Came First, Barry Bonds, or The Iraq "War?" The Case Against Bonds Weighing In: Veteran defense attorney Michael Shapiro in New York, "It's a defensible case. Perjury cases turn on technicalities. A person who understood that is [former President] William Jefferson Clinton, who once famously said the definition of one of his answers depended on what the definition of the word 'is' is. Bonds is no Clinton, but prosecutors still have to prove what was going on in his mind when he said what he said." Former county prosecutor Hugh Levine, who represented Bonds' ex- girlfriend, Kimberly Bell, in her appearance before the grand jury, commented that he was struck by the impreciseness of the questions asked Bonds. "My impression is the questions were posed poorly and imprecisely, and for a prosecutor trying to pin down a witness on perjury, [it was] a poor job. I thought the questions were loosey-goosey and informal almost to the point of being unprofessional," Levine said. "Perjury is a crime that requires a high degree of precision," he said and that the questions that drew the questionable perjurious answers were not precise. "For example, using the word 'steroids' brings in imprecision because steroids are not illegal . . . . It is possible that the prosecution meant unlawful steroids, controlled steroids. That is what they have to make clear. . . . I would imagine the defense will use professors of linguistics [to testify] about words and multiple meanings." Bonds former gal-pal, Bell said that Bonds had told her he was using steroids but that she never saw him taking them.. Bell said that his physique change is circumstantial evidence, but that, "That is one thing. Proving that those few sentences pulled out of his grand jury testimony are lies is another thing." Walt Brown, a Former federal prosecutor, who is now a white-collar-crime defense attorney in the 'Frisco Area, wondered: "What's their proof [that Bonds lied]? What's their evidence? The case will depend on some circumstantial evidence, or statements he made to other people. They need to prove he knew he was taking a steroid." More than that they need to prove the that the steroid he was taking was an illegal one. If Bonds says, he thought they were asking him if he was taking an illegal steroid, and he answered "No," then he was not lying. Before the Iraq "war" there were both a Barry Bonds and a GW Bush. Bush is older, so he came first, but Bush was a "Cheerleader" Bonds was/is an athlete and one of the greatest. Bush was a president, one of, if not, THE worst. Bonds hit 762 Home runs, an all time record. Bush killed 1.5 million Iraqi's, most of which appear to have been innocent bystanders, so far all time record for the 21st century. Bonds made a lot of people, especially a lot of, both healthy and unhealthy kids millions of them, happy. Bush made a lot of people, tens of millions of them unhappy and angry, and tens of millions of Americans and Iraqi's very unhealthy, by wars and outsourcing jobs, and refusal to cover them with health care plans. Bush has a health care plan for his family, so has Bonds. Bush took legal drugs illegally, and Illegal and intoxicating drugs and was never prosecuted, (cocaine, Marijuana, alcohol and God knows what else), and was never prosecuted. Bonds is alleged to have taken an illegal non-intoxicating drug, and has to go to face an indictment. Bonds may, or may not, have lied about taking drugs whether he took any sort of drug legally or otherwise, is unknown and he was indicted, though his taking or not taking of the alleged drugs, killed no one. Bush did lie about why we went to war killing 1.5 million people, and lied about so damned many other things, but thanks to his good pals Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel, and Alberto Gonzalez, he has not even ever been arrested, let alone indicted or impeached. Bush had an origin, born by sheer luck into wealth and took drugs and alcohol, which may have warped his mind, and that, made him a sadistic president, and a worse president than we have ever had. Bonds may or may not have taken illegal steroids, but according to Professor's Emeritus and physicians, which did studies on the subject, which in either case, did not make him a better baseball player. Racists don't want to accept that truth, they want his record to have come BECAUSE of drugs, and in spite of the scientific truth. God made a universe, because He can both create and destroy matter, which the laws of science indicate cannot be done, but base the theory of the Big Bang on its having, strangely, enough, was done, and all of which apparently happened before the Big Bang, before there was space, or matter. Barry Bonds made 762 Home Runs, with the help of God, but the steroids, if he did take them, hindered his home run production counter to the claims of the uneducated, ignorant and bigoted, because steroids that bulk up a person make reflexive willed reaction, sluggish, and one cannot time or hit 100 mph fastballs and sliders with sluggish reflexes. Life pre-existed the universe, in probable other dimensions and universes, and in the Creator, and later came Osama Bin Ladin/GW Bush and Barry Bonds. Many of us who are pure baseball and statistical fans, deplore the two former and applaud the singular, latter. Good day and God Bless