The Big Bang is “Ex Niholo” (creation from nothing). Ask any Big Bang believer for evidence of the Big Bang, you run straight into circular arguments and “evidence” which is very dodgy as it comes from confirmation bias and fraud. Ask what made the Big Bang happened, you run straight into a contradiction and MAGICAL explanation (the laws of physics didn’t apply before the “Big Bang”).
There was Nothing, then a Magic bit happened, and suddenly there was Something…. forget that Magic bit we can’t explain at all, and just pretend it doesn’t exist while we go on pretending that WE IN THE WHITE ROBES (oops! I mean um….) WHITE LABCOATS know EVERYTHING. It’s called Science. Do not ask questions of Science. Even though this is contradictory and Science is all about Questions, you must not ask US any questions. Just BELIEVE US!
What do you mean this is a Faith-Based Argument?! No it isn’t, we’re Scientists and you just don’t know any shit we know, OK? Stop asking questions, and doubting, and all that. Give us more money instead.
The beginning point had to be a super-duper black hole containing all of the mass of the universe. Therefore no amount of “bang”, no matter how big, is going result in it suddenly exploding outwards to create the universe. The two concepts become contradictory again. Cosmologists promoting the Big Bang Theory then go with the “explanation” that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe. In other words… MAGIC DID IT!!! Yaay! Problem solved…. (~_~)…
The main reasoning for the Big Bang is based on the Expanding Universe theory which itself is extremely dodgy; it was birthed as an explanation for the “redshift”. The further away interstellar objects are, the more the light from them is red-shifted. Therefore it’s argued that all of these things are moving away from us, and the further away they are, the faster they must be moving. This reintroduces an Earth-centric view of the Cosmos, because if everything redshifted is racing away from us, then that means WE must be at the centre of the Universe where the Big Bang began. In their love for their belief in the Big Bang and Expanding Universe, they will always “rule out” other explanations with dismissive names such as “tired light”, then claim also to have accounted for the totally unknowable. Light gets absorbed as well. Losing energy along the way. Gravitational distortions also reduce energy. Interactions with the plasma in electromagnetic fields absorbs energy as well. I find it amazing that so many otherwise rational people assume that light is magically resistant to losing energy over vast distances even when they make up more magical stuff like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Just keep adding in those hobgoblins and fairytale explanations trying to shoehorn really badly flawed models into fitting what’s seen.
Star temperatures affect redshift as well;
https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1015v1
Which implies the intervening medium’s temperature would as well. Assuming that the entire distance to a distant interstellar object that the intervening medium is roughly the same temperature and density is a rather wildly unsupportable abandonment of logic. The temperature of the intervening medium must have an effect.
It’s also silly to assume that light has a constant speed across the entire distance;
https://phys.org/news/2013-03-ephemeral-vacuum-particles-speed-of-light-fluctuations.html
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7
They argue that Light is a wave when it’s convenient for them, and a particle when it’s convenient for them. Such as claiming that reduction of energy reduce the amplitude of a target’s signal, not its frequency – which goes against thermodynamics. The wave pattern loses energy, therefore the frequency changes too. It’s funny how often light is given magical exceptions to the rest of physics when ignoring such issues. They believe that Light maintains the same amount of energy regardless of the distance, without the wave pattern reducing at all. The pretence that Light would lose very little energy is absurd. Not only by distortions of intervening matter, but also by gravitational distortions. The gravitational delay can’t be known since what we are seeing is also distorted by an unknown number of objects and influences that can’t be seen nor identified. The assumption that speed of light is constant across the entire distance is also highly questionable due to all of the above.
The pile of speculations and untested assumptions begins looking very analogous to a castle built not even as solid as one on sand, but on mist.
It’s just guessing while pretending to be “scientific”.
These Cosmologists and proponents of Einstein’s theories argue that Light has no mass while at the same time accepting that Light has mass. They’ll place Light as the exception to the rule that any mass going as fast as Light would also have infinite mass, yet at the same time they accept that Light is bent by gravitational fields, which shows that Light has mass.
They do the same again with Black Holes, accepting that a mass of such extreme gravity would slow down the Light escaping from a forming Black Hole, which means they accept that Light has mass. Black Holes are a case of magical nonsense because by the arguments of the proponents of Black Holes, the light slows down so much that the time period required for a Black Hole to be formed is greater than the age of the Universe by an enormous number of magnitudes. Therefore no Black Holes would have formed yet, and none would be visible. Then the Black Hole believers – needing “evidence” for their theory – will every now and again claim that a dark object seen against a bright background, or a strong X-ray source, must be a “Black Hole”, thereby abandoning the requirements of their own beloved theory’s mathematics that come to the conclusion that no Black Holes could have formed yet. The whole claim that time slows down is contradictory to the creation of a Black Hole. Time stopping on a Black Hole prevents its formation, slowing down to the point where it would take longer than the age of the universe means that no Black Holes can yet exist. Every time that somebody comes along and screams “We found a Black Hole!” it’s clearly a game to pretend there is evidence for Black Holes when their own theories about Black Hole creation result in none existing for a long time to come, therefore they contradict their own theories!
Neutron stars are supposed to release X-rays too; https://arstechnica.com/science/2005/11/1877/ An X-ray transient does not automatically equal “This Is A Black Hole!”.
They’ll claim to have detected “gravity waves” with the use of huge white elephant project called LIGO. The effectiveness of the LIGO detectors depends primarily upon how accurately it’s mirrors can reflect the laser beams shined at them. The imperfections are still over a billion times larger than the predicted size of gravitational waves themselves (only one-ten-thousandth the diameter of a proton). It has been argued that because these imperfections are a constant and not a variable they are accounted for in the observations (but they are not a constant and therefore can’t be accurately accounted for; However, because these imperfections are randomly distributed across the mirrors’ surfaces it is unlikely they can be accurately excluded from the measurements ). LIGO is so sensitive that everything from random insects landing on the arms, the vibration of a jackhammer used in roadwork 10kms away, a passing truck, or literally almost anything else that’s not known to it’s operators is what they’re actually detecting. The “noise” is far greater than the “signal” which they are looking for. It’s illogical to argue that LIGO could ever have worked. It’s a massive waste of money which profited only it’s proponents who are no more priests wanting yet another more expensive temple (parading themselves as scientists).
General Relativity portrays a Black Hole as a perfectly determined, unique state of the space-time. It carries no entropy. According to quantum mechanics, this can’t be the case as a Black Hole has to carry a huge entropy – in fact, a greater entropy than any other localized object of the same mass – which is needed for the second law of thermodynamics to hold (entropy has to increase in time). They can’t both be true.
It becomes fantasy when unscientific “scientists” are using two conflicting concepts to describe a thing, then it becomes a fraud when they change which of these conflicting concepts they’re using every time a flaw is pointed out that conflicts with reality. Model-A doesn’t explain such-and-such problem, then swap to Model-B which has other problems, back and forth dodging the fact that the models conflict and neither works on it’s own. It’s like claiming that an object is an elephant when you want to claim it’s huge and heavy, but then claim it’s a mouse when you have to explain why it can fit through a small hole and walk on some bread without crushing it.
Cosmologists these days are pretending to be scientific but parading illogical crap as if they believe just saying it’s “Science” means the rest us should shut up and “believe” as well.
The Establishment may be holding onto the Big Bang and Black Holes with a an insane death grip as they deny logic, mathematics, and reality itself – but the truth is coming out anyway.
https://college.unc.edu/2014/09/23/black-holes/
http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583
https://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
A Researcher Mathematically Proves Black Holes Don’t Exist
OnlyTheGhosts remain 