Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.astronomy > #313460 > unrolled thread

Big Bang Never Was !

Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy

Contents

  Big Bang Never Was ! casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2026-04-09 15:40 -0400
    Big Bang theory (was: Big Bang Never Was !) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-04-09 21:57 +0200
    Re: Big Bang Never Was ! Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> - 2026-04-10 16:59 +1000
      Big Bang theory (was: Big Bang Never Was !) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-04-10 14:50 +0200
    Re: Big Bang Never Was ! Kualinar <kuakinar@videotron.ca> - 2026-04-10 08:14 -0400
    Re: Big Bang Never Was ! Daniel <me@sc1f1dan.com> - 2026-04-10 07:31 -0700
    Re: Big Bang Never Was ! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-04-10 19:47 +0200
      Re: Big Bang Never Was ! casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2026-04-12 18:22 -0400
        Big Bang cosmology (was: Big Bang Never Was !) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-04-13 05:11 +0200
        Big Bang cosmology (was: Big Bang Never Was !) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-04-14 11:28 +0200
    Re: Big Bang Never Was ! a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2026-04-10 11:46 -0700
      Re: Big Bang Never Was ! casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2026-05-01 19:06 -0400
        Re: Big Bang Never Was ! Daniel <me@sc1f1dan.com> - 2026-05-02 18:30 -0700

#313460 — Big Bang Never Was !

Simple minded theory based on the apparent current motion of galaxies
and extrapolating back about 13 billion years.

Postulates that the whole universe sprang from a single point. How so
totally incomprehensible and absurd.

Yet, so very many subscribe to this BS !

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#313461 — Big Bang theory (was: Big Bang Never Was !)

casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
> Simple minded theory based on the apparent current motion of galaxies
> and extrapolating back about 13 billion years.

Yes, but not only.  There is, for example, also the CMB, and we can observe
galaxies as they were up to ca. 13.6 billion years ago (because the speed of
light is finite: light takes time to get to us).

> Postulates that the whole universe sprang from a single point.

No.

> How so totally incomprehensible and absurd.

Yes.  OTOH:

  "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to *you*."

  --Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and science communicator

> Yet, so very many subscribe to this BS !

It is not "BS", you are just ignorant about what the theory actually says,
and of the observations that confirm it.

How many more times does this have to be proven to you?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313462

On 10/04/2026 5:40 am, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
> Simple minded theory based on the apparent current motion of galaxies
> and extrapolating back about 13 billion years.
> 
> Postulates that the whole universe sprang from a single point. How so
> totally incomprehensible and absurd.
> 
> Yet, so very many subscribe to this BS !


Hard to believe people actually swallow this.  I thought it was complete 
nonsense 1st time I heard of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313464 — Big Bang theory (was: Big Bang Never Was !)

Whisper wrote:
> On 10/04/2026 5:40 am, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
>> Simple minded theory based on the apparent current motion of galaxies
>> and extrapolating back about 13 billion years.
>>
>> Postulates that the whole universe sprang from a single point. How so
>> totally incomprehensible and absurd.
>>
>> Yet, so very many subscribe to this BS !
> 
> Hard to believe people actually swallow this.

You have to be strong now: People do NOT just "swallow" this.  They do NOT
believe this.  This is science, not religion.  They *learn* about it,
*understand* the *reasoning* and the *supporting evidence*, and *then* they
accept it as a *valid*, and most likely to be *correct*, scientific theory.

> I thought it was complete nonsense 1st time I heard of it.

So, what *exactly* made you think that?

It is easy to dismiss a theory because of a "gut feeling".  Do you have any
*rationale* to think so?  Do you have anything to *refute the supporting
evidence*?  Do you have any *evidence to the contrary*?

Consider:

  "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to *you*."

  --Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and science communicator

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313463

Le 2026-04-09 à 15:40, casagiannoni@optonline.net a écrit :
> Simple minded theory based on the apparent current motion of galaxies
> and extrapolating back about 13 billion years.
> 
> Postulates that the whole universe sprang from a single point. How so
> totally incomprehensible and absurd.
> 
> Yet, so very many subscribe to this BS !

Your total lack of understanding, wilful ignorance and spastic denial of 
thousands of evidences is NOT a valid argument against the Big Bang.
Incomprehensible for the uneducated ? Yes, very.
Absurd ? Not at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313466

casagiannoni@optonline.net writes:

> Simple minded theory based on the apparent current motion of galaxies
> and extrapolating back about 13 billion years.
>
> Postulates that the whole universe sprang from a single point. How so
> totally incomprehensible and absurd.
>
> Yet, so very many subscribe to this BS !

Show me the math on how it's wrong.

I'll wait.

Daniel
sysop  | air & wave bbs
finger | calcmandan@bbs.erb.pw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313468

casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
> [Subject: Big Bang Never Was !]

Your wording of the Subject already shows that you know the Big Bang theory
only from popular-scientific accounts, at best.

In cosmology, the Big Bang is NOT something that has happened, but it *is*
the *current* expansion of the space of our universe.

Also, you do not know English very well: "never" and "was" are not written
beginning with a capital letter (except by some style guides in headings,
but not in the Subject of a NetNews posting), and one does not write space
before a sentence-ending mark like "!".  This does not bode well for you
understanding the theory by reading because English is the /lingua franca/
of science now: almost all scientific works are published for global
publication in English, and scientists are required to understand it (most
Master classes are given in English regardless of the country; BTST).

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313470

>
>In cosmology, the Big Bang is NOT something that has happened, but it *is*
>the *current* expansion of the space of our universe.
>
Since the Universe includes everything, it obviously has no bounds or
limits and expansion makes no sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313471 — Big Bang cosmology (was: Big Bang Never Was !)

[You ought to keep the attribution lines.]

casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your real name should be there.

> [casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote: ]
>> In cosmology, the Big Bang is NOT something that has happened, but it *is*
>> the *current* expansion of the space of our universe.
>
> Since the Universe includes everything,

Our modern understanding has improved from this about 100 years (!) ago.

> it obviously has no bounds or limits

It *can* have _boundaries_, but it does NOT have to.  It can even have
limited extent without having a boundary, like a sphere.

> and expansion makes no sense.

As I already explained to you at least once, that our universe is expanding
-- which we can observe -- has nothing to do with whether it has a boundary
or is limited in extent:

Fermilab:
"26 Subatomic Stories: How the Big Bang really happened"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1s6o48_znQ&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuCz2kzSgrgVIiGVTHxZn-Cu&index=5>

[Notice that "galaxies are moving away from us" is an unfortunate wording
that you often find in simplified explanations.  What is meant is that the
galaxies mostly remain were they are, but the distances between them are
increasing because the scale factor of our universe is increasing.]

See also

<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuCz2kzSgrgVIiGVTHxZn-Cu>

for the full "story".

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313472 — Big Bang cosmology (was: Big Bang Never Was !)

[You ought to keep the attribution lines. Restored below.]

casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your real name should be there.

> [Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: ]
>> In cosmology, the Big Bang is NOT something that has happened, but it *is*
>> the *current* expansion of the space of our universe.
>
> Since the Universe includes everything,

Our modern understanding has improved from this about 100 years (!) ago.

> it obviously has no bounds or limits

It *can* have _boundaries_, but it does NOT have to.  It can even have
limited extent without having a boundary, like a sphere.

> and expansion makes no sense.

As I already explained to you at least once, that our universe is expanding
-- which we can observe -- has nothing to do with whether it has a boundary
or is limited in extent:

Fermilab:
"26 Subatomic Stories: How the Big Bang really happened"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1s6o48_znQ&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuCz2kzSgrgVIiGVTHxZn-Cu&index=5>

[Notice that "galaxies are moving away from us" is an unfortunate wording
that you often find in simplified explanations.  What is meant is that the
galaxies mostly remain were they are, but the distances between them are
increasing because the scale factor of our universe is increasing.]

See also

<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuCz2kzSgrgVIiGVTHxZn-Cu>

for the full "story".

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313469

On 4/9/26 12:40, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
> Simple minded theory based on the apparent current motion of galaxies
> and extrapolating back about 13 billion years.
> 
> Postulates that the whole universe sprang from a single point. How so
> totally incomprehensible and absurd.
> 
> Yet, so very many subscribe to this BS !

There, you state what you do not believe in.

I believe I have asked you before to clarify your thoughts
of what you do believe in and who else thinks as you do.

Here are some of the possibilities.

What schools of thought deny the "big bang"?

AI Overview
Schools of thought that deny or challenge the Big Bang theory generally 
fall into scientific, philosophical, and theological categories. They 
often object to the concept of a definitive beginning of the universe 
(creation ex nihilo), the singularity, or the timeline of cosmological 
evolution.
Here are the primary schools of thought that deny or challenge the Big Bang:

1. Steady State Theory (and Quasi-Steady State)
This scientific theory was the primary alternative to the Big Bang in 
the mid-20th century.
Core Idea: While the universe is expanding, it does not change its 
appearance over time. It is eternal, with no beginning and no end. To 
maintain constant density, new matter is continuously created, allowing 
for a "steady state."
Proponents: Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi.
Current Status: Generally considered obsolete due to findings like the 
cosmic microwave background (CMB), but modified versions (Quasi-Steady 
State) are still explored by some, such as Jayant Narlikar.

2. Young Earth Creationism (YEC)
This theological school of thought rejects the Big Bang based on a 
literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
Core Idea: The universe, Earth, and all life were created by God in six 
24-hour days, approximately 6,000–10,000 years ago.
Rejection Reason: The Big Bang posits a 13.8 billion-year-old universe, 
which conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible.
Key Adherents: Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research.

3. Alternative Cosmological Models (Plasma Universe)
Some alternative models challenge the "Big Bang" as the sole explanation 
for cosmological observations, favoring electrical or plasma-based physics.
Core Idea: The Plasma Universe school (based partly on the work of 
Hannes Alfvén) argues that electromagnetic forces play a more critical 
role than gravity alone on large scales, suggesting an eternal or 
different evolution of the universe.
Alternative Ideas: Some proponents propose that rather than one massive 
explosion, there are "mini-bangs" creating matter at different epochs.

4. Philosophical/Metaphysical Objections
Some, including certain philosophers and scientists, deny the Big Bang 
based on philosophical implications rather than direct observation.
Eternal Universe View: Some atheists and philosophers have historically 
objected to the Big Bang because it suggests a beginning, which hints at 
a creator. They prefer a "universe from all eternity" to bypass the need 
for a "first cause".
Singularity Denial: Many physicists acknowledge that our understanding 
of physics breaks down at the singularity (the start of the Big Bang). 
Some argue that a "beginning" is mathematically and physically 
impossible, promoting bounce theories (cyclic models) where a previous 
universe collapses before expanding.

5. Geocentrism
A very small minority of literalist thinkers deny the Big Bang and 
modern astronomy altogether.
Core Idea: The Earth is the center of the universe, and it does not move.

Summary Table of Objections
School of Thought 	Key Reason for Denial
Steady State	Prefer an eternal, non-changing universe.
Young Earth	Timeline contradicts literal Genesis (6,000 years vs 13.8 
billion).
Plasma Theory	Prefer electromagnetic forces over gravity/singularities.
Philosophical	Object to a "beginning" and the need for a creator.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313500

test3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313501

casagiannoni@optonline.net writes:

> test3

yup

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy

csiph-web