Modern day theoretical physics - a cult following.

fkface

This story about the discovery of Higgs Boson and how the scientists said their research was inconclusive..

What have we actually learned from their research?

They've spent billions of dollars on building this machine 100 meters under the ground and what has been concluded?

And no, this isn't trolling, it's a genuine observation that the scientists have only concluded Higgs Boson might exist, not that it actually does.

The scientific explanations for the origins of the universe are about as accurate as they are in the bible so what makes one more plausible than the other?

And no, I don't read the bible or follow some deity as this is the first accusation from the atheist cult, but nobody knows how big the universe is, the "big bang" theory is based on theoretical science yet there are people convinved this was how the universe started without acknowledging the basis of their beliefs are purely theoretical and inconclusive much the same as a christian believing in bible.

The best way to verify whether these scientific theories are correct or not is to use Mathematics and since these physicists haven't been able to conclude their scientific theories are true or not, why do people follow this stuff like it's 100% real?

It's quite bizzare and not much more different than those following a religion to be honest.

How can someone argue so vehemently in favour of theories that are utterly inconclusive and then call you an "idiot" for pointing out the fact?

That seems to be the modern day religion to me. Anyone else agree?

Jonny7

I have to ask, whats the conspiracy theory?

MrStuffins

fkface wrote: »

This story about the discovery of Higgs Boson and how the scientists said their research was inconclusive..

What have we actually learned from their research?

They've spent billions of dollars on building this machine 100 meters under the ground and what has been concluded?

And no, this isn't trolling, it's a genuine observation that the scientists have only concluded Higgs Boson might exist, not that it actually does.

The scientific explanations for the origins of the universe are about as accurate as they are in the bible so what makes one more plausible than the other?

I stopped reading right here.

Wow!

fkface

MrStuffins wrote: »

I stopped reading right here.

Wow!

So the big bang is fact?

No, it's not.

That's why they call it "big bang theory"

fkface

fkface wrote: »

So the big bang is fact?

No, it's not.

That's why they call it "big bang theory"

It's also "the theory of gravity" and "germ theory".

So which bit of the big bang do you disagree with, and what research have you done that allows you to form such an opinion?

studiorat

fkface wrote: »

The best way to verify whether these scientific theories are correct or not is to use Mathematics and since these physicists haven't been able to conclude their scientific theories are true or not, why do people follow this stuff like it's 100% real?

But the purpose of the Higgs boson experiment was to find out if the mathematics is correct. That is, to actually observe something that was proposed to exist within a theoretical model created using mathematics.

I suppose people follow it because they are interested in and open to new ideas.

The difference between Universal Origin in the Bible and theoretical physics is that one is a theory and the other is a hypothesis at best. Once again the clue is in the name.

FullRetard

King Mob wrote: »

It's also "the theory of gravity" and "germ theory".

dont think they teach them in the troll college.

Scientists have more proveable evidence for the big bang theory than that a bearded sky fairly created the universe.

MrStuffins

fkface wrote: »

So the big bang is fact?

No, it's not.

That's why they call it "big bang theory"

Well, I never said it was fact! My problem is that you think that the hundreds of years of scientific exploration, experimentation and fact based research that went into all of the different aspects of what makes up the Big Bang Theory is JUST AS PLAUSABLE as the creation myth! It shows you have ZERO understanding of the Big Bang theory itself! ZERO!

Also, LOL at your clichéd "That's why it's called a theory" bull. This also shows that you have very little knowledge of the word "Theory" and it's definitions.

Do you think it's a fact that the sun revolves around the earth? You know, as in the Heliocentric THEORY?? :rolleyes:

MrStuffins

King Mob wrote: »

It's also "the theory of gravity" and "germ theory".

So which bit of the big bang do you disagree with, and what research have you done that allows you to form such an opinion?

I think it's safe to say that a guy who has said such things as he has said has done no research whatsoever!

fkface

King Mob wrote:

So which bit of the big bang do you disagree with, and what research have you done that allows you to form such an opinion?

We haven't observed the "Big Bang" in nature that's why I find it such a stupid explanation for how the universe was created. "there was a big bang" meh.

Theoretical Physics doesn't answer the question on the origins of the universe, doesn't even come close to being fact in any way.

As for Higgs Boson, combined research by two different teams found only a one in two million chance that their observation was incorrect.

fkface

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well, I never said it was fact! My problem is that you think that the hundreds of years of scientific exploration, experimentation and fact based research that went into all of the different aspects of what makes up the Big Bang Theory is JUST AS PLAUSABLE as the creation myth! It shows you have ZERO understanding of the Big Bang theory itself! ZERO!

Also, LOL at your clichéd "That's why it's called a theory" bull. This also shows that you have very little knowledge of the word "Theory" and it's definitions.

Do you think it's a fact that the sun revolves around the earth? You know, as in the Heliocentric THEORY?? :rolleyes:

Yes, but the Big Bang theory is not fact, is it?

That's all that needs to be said really, that you believe in fantasy.

hooradiation

fkface wrote: »

And no, this isn't trolling

fkface wrote: »

So the big bang is fact?
No, it's not.
That's why they call it "big bang theory"

Are you sure you're not trolling, because that second quote is either the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the very basics of science or low quality troll cut 'n' paste.

Either way, you're not off to a good start.

MrStuffins

fkface wrote: »

Yes, but the Big Bang theory is not fact, is it?

That's all that needs to be said really, that you believe in fantasy.

It all depends on what you consider "fact".

Nothing is "fact" except Mathematics.

fkface

hooradiation wrote: »

Are you sure you're not trolling, because that second quote is either the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the very basics of science or low quality troll cut 'n' paste.

Either way, you're not off to a good start.

Alright so explain why the Big Bang theory is fact?

I'm merely pointing out flaws in the people who follow science like a cult.

fkface

fkface wrote: »

We haven't observed the "Big Bang" in nature that's why I find it such a stupid explanation for how the universe was created. "there was a big bang" meh.

So what about the fact that distant galaxies are receding at an increasing rate?
What about the fact that tracing this motion back we find that all matter in the universe was closer together?
What about the cosmic background radiation?

Which of these do you disagree with and why?

And when have you ever observed a germ causing disease, or gravity causing masses to attract?

fkface wrote: »

Theoretical Physics doesn't answer the question on the origins of the universe, doesn't even come close to being fact in any way.

You don't seem to know anything about physics or how science works in general.
What has lead you to the conclusion that it's all nonsense other than that you are too lazy to understand it?

fkface wrote: »

As for Higgs Boson, combined research by two different teams found only a one in two million chance that their observation was incorrect.

And? That's quite a huge step in particle physics research. The more experiments they run, chances are good that we'll become more sure of it's existence.

But this just proves you point is nonsense. Why, if physicists are in this massive cult, why do they suggest there's a chance that they are wrong?
Surely if they are behaving like a religion (or a conspiracy theorist) they would have declared the Higgs Boson existed when it was first theorised isn't of bothering with all the experiment stuff.

So can you please explain what issues you have with the theory specifically and could you detail how they went wrong in their experiments.
Surely if your opinion is informed and not just a blanket ignorant denial, you can answer those questions.

MrStuffins

fkface wrote: »

Alright so explain why the Big Bang theory is fact?

I'm merely pointing out flaws in the people who follow science like a cult.

Nobody follows science like a cult. I have no idea where you're getting this from.

Also, where's the conspiracy?

fkface

The conspiracy: The theories proposed by Theoretical Physicists to explain the origins of our universe are only intended to disuade from exploring alternative theories for our existence.

MrStuffins

fkface wrote: »

The conspiracy: The theories proposed by Theoretical Physicists to explain the origins of our universe are only intended to disuade from exploring alternative theories for our existence.

And what are you basing this on?

Because, the above statement shows you have ZERO knowledge of physics!

studiorat

fkface wrote: »

The conspiracy: The theories proposed by Theoretical Physicists to explain the origins of our universe are only intended to disuade from exploring alternative theories for our existence.

Have you got an example of one of these alternative theories ?

fkface

fkface wrote: »

The conspiracy: The theories proposed by Theoretical Physicists to explain the origins of our universe are only intended to disuade from exploring alternative theories for our existence.

So who's paying them, and are all physicists involved?
And which alternative theories aren't being explored and why would the evil physicists or whoever not want them explored?
And why did they pick incorrect theories that even you, some one who clearly hasn't a clue about science or physics can see straight through them?

Defiler Of The Coffin

Can I absolutely prove I actually exist? If not then there's no way I am even typing this. Theories are for heathens!

Enkidu

fkface wrote: »

We haven't observed the "Big Bang" in nature that's why I find it such a stupid explanation for how the universe was created. "there was a big bang" meh.

How ignorant.

The big bang explains:
The ratio of elements present in the universe
The large scale structure of the universe
Structure formation of galaxies
The observed red shift of all galaxies
Quadratic deviations in red shift relations
Anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background
The actual presence of the Cosmic Microwave Background

It's not just "there was a big bang", its part of Einstein's theory of general relativity.

endacl

This should be fun..

Seriously though OP, put forward a single alternative, and explain the conspiracy. Don't worry about details. An outline sketch will do grand.

Theoretical physics thus far has withstood the scientific method. That is, hypothesize - test - evaluate. And repeat... The same method, in fact, that tends to knock many ct's flat on their respective arses.

What's the issue?

fkface

MrStuffins wrote: »

And what are you basing this on?

Because, the above statement shows you have ZERO knowledge of physics!

Oh, and you're an expert of Physics are you?

Too bad you're unable to prove conclusively the origins of our universe and instead use unfounded theories which are no more useful than believing a God created everything in the universe.

Your theories require a certain level of faith to believe in.

An intelligent person doesn't require a deep understanding of physics to see how clearly flawed some of the the scientific theories explaining the origins of our universe are.

I watched a seminar once about Black Holes and one of the audience asked the scientist what was on the other side of a black hole ...he said

"presumably a light hole"

He just picked his answer out of his own hole and now the cult believe this is exactly what's on the other end of a black hole in space despite the fact scientists have never observed what's on the other side.

Laughable science.

fkface

Enkidu wrote: »

How ignorant.

The big bang explains:
The ratio of elements present in the universe
The large scale structure of the universe
Structure formation of galaxies
The observed red shift of all galaxies
Quadratic deviations in red shift relations
Anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background
The actual presence of the Cosmic Microwave Background

It's not just "there was a big bang", its part of Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Oh, here we go, is this all fact now?

MrStuffins

fkface wrote: »

Oh, and you're an expert of Physics are you?

Nope, makes 2 of us

Too bad you're unable to prove conclusively the origins of our universe

You are 100% right for the first time tonight. It IS too bad

and instead use unfounded theories which are no more useful than believing a God created everything in the universe.

Unfounded you say.

Ok, do yourself a favour here. Tell me what your understanding of the Big Bang is?

Your theories require a certain level of faith to believe in.

False.

An intelligent person doesn't require a deep understanding of physics to see how clearly flawed some of the the scientific theories explaining the origins of our universe are.

No but a basic understanding of what they're talking about would be nice

I watched a seminar once about Black Holes and one of the audience asked the scientist what was on the other side of a black hole ...he said

"presumably a light hole"

He just picked his answer out of his own hole and now the cult believe this is exactly what's on the other end of a black hole in space despite the fact scientists have never observed what's on the other side.

Laughable science.

Laughable is correct, it's called a joke.

MrStuffins

fkface wrote: »

Oh, here we go, is this all fact now?

Lol, yes, it is ALL fact! All of it!

You have absolutely no clue have you?

studiorat

fkface wrote: »

Oh, and you're an expert of Physics are you?

Too bad you're unable to prove conclusively the origins of our universe and instead use unfounded theories which are no more useful than believing a God created everything in the universe.

Your theories require a certain level of faith to believe in.

An intelligent person doesn't require a deep understanding of physics to see how clearly flawed some of the the scientific theories explaining the origins of our universe are.

I watched a seminar once about Black Holes and one of the audience asked the scientist what was on the other side of a black hole ...he said

"presumably a light hole"

He just picked his answer out of his own hole and now the cult believe this is exactly what's on the other end of a black hole in space despite the fact scientists have never observed what's on the other side.

Laughable science.

I'm assuming you and this cult don't know what presumably means then. :pac:

So anyway, these alternative theories tell us more...

fkface

fkface wrote: »

An intelligent person doesn't require a deep understanding of physics to see how clearly flawed some of the the scientific theories explaining the origins of our universe are.

We have asked you repeatedly to point out some of the flaws you are referring to. You have not most likely because you cannot because you have no idea what you are talking about.

So if this is not the case, please point us to some of these glaring flaws and answer some of the ones we've pointed to in your laughable claims.

hooradiation

fkface wrote: »

Alright so explain why the Big Bang theory is fact?

I tell you what, you learn the difference between a theory in the vernacular sense and a scientific theory and then we'll talk.

In order for there to be a conversation both parties need to agree on or at the very least understand some basic principles. Seeing as you don't (or refuse to) then we have nothing to discuss until such time as you raise yourself to an appropriate level.
It shouldn't take long.

fkface wrote: »

I'm merely pointing out flaws in the people who follow science like a cult.

No, you're not.
You're railing against positions (and misusing terminology like it's going out of fashion) that people don't hold. Gosh, if only there was a term for that.

MrStuffins

I hope the OP is off reading a book!

studiorat

hooradiation wrote: »

I tell you what, you learn the difference between a theory in the vernacular sense and a scientific theory and then we'll talk.

Where does a conspiracy theory fit in to this then?

Vernacular? Scientific? Melon?

hooradiation

studiorat wrote: »

Where does a conspiracy theory fit in to this then?

Vernacular? Scientific? Melon?

Well, it's not a scientific theory by any means, so by default it's theory in the common usage.

Not that you needed me to tell you that.

RoboClam

This does not strictly belong on this forum, but I'm interested to see where it goes.

fkface, Enkidu has written a nice list of a set of OBSERVABLE facts in this post...

Enkidu wrote: »

How ignorant.

The big bang explains:
The ratio of elements present in the universe
The large scale structure of the universe
Structure formation of galaxies
The observed red shift of all galaxies
Quadratic deviations in red shift relations
Anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background
The actual presence of the Cosmic Microwave Background

It's not just "there was a big bang", its part of Einstein's theory of general relativity.

These can be measured. All that a theory does is find an explanation for a set of facts and can make predictions of future observations. If you can find a theory which explains these facts more succinctly than the Big Bang Theory, then I'd be interested to hear it.

fkface

Astronomer Robert Jastrow said

"The proposal for the creation of matter out of nothing possesses a strong appeal to the scientist, since it permits him to contemplate a Universe without beginning and without end"

This sounds a lot like people that preach religion, doesn't it?
When someone asks a reasonable question on what came before the Big Bang, just tell them it doesn't matter. Get it? :P

Throughout history, many theories were proposed on the origin of our universe.

Cartesian Hypothesis - Descartes
Nebular Hypothesis - Laplace
Tidal Hypothesis - Darwin
Planetesimal Hypothesis - Chamberlain and Moulton
Big Bang Hypothesis - Lemaitre
Ambiplasma Hypothesis - Klein
Inflationary Hypothesis - Guth
Mixmaster Hypothesis - Misner

... and on and on

Those are small selection of theories proposed by scientists over the last 400 years which have all been replaced by ever more elaborate ones.

Early astronomers that didn't have powerful enough technology to see beyond our own galaxy believed their observations and theories were fact much like a lot of cultists today.

Only when the technology became available in early 1900s was it clear the universe was much larger than just the milky way.

Technology and instruments continue to improve just as the current theories on the origins of the universe continue to evolve.

The origin of the universe is a philosophical debate, nothing more.

RoboClam wrote:

These can be measured.

Some can be measured, what percentage? 5% perhaps?
Clearly the theories are inconclusive and nothing more than speculation.

We have a situation where people blindly believe it all to be fact.

fkface

fkface wrote: »

This sounds a lot like people that preach religion, doesn't it?
When someone asks a reasonable question on what came before the Big Bang, just tell them it doesn't matter. Get it? :P

But you aren't asking reasonable questions. You are just dismissing it out of hand for no reason beyond your confidence in your own ignorance.

I've asked you repeatedly to point out the specific flaws you find in the Big Bang model. Why can't you point to them?


You further display how little you know in your list.

fkface wrote: »

Throughout history, many theories were proposed on the origin of our universe.

Cartesian Hypothesis - Descartes

Wasn't a scientific theory, was never supported by evidence.

fkface wrote: »

Nebular Hypothesis - Laplace

The Nebular Hypothesis is still a part of our understanding of how stars and solar systems form.

fkface wrote: »

Tidal Hypothesis - Darwin

Is not a theory about the formation of the universe and was not proposed by Darwin.

fkface wrote: »

Planetesimal Hypothesis - Chamberlain and Moulton

Again, not a theory applicable to the universe and is still sort of a part of our current understanding.

fkface wrote: »

Big Bang Hypothesis - Lemaitre

Which is out current understanding and is the most supported and most consistent.

fkface wrote: »

Ambiplasma Hypothesis - Klein

Has never been accepted or supported.

fkface wrote: »

Inflationary Hypothesis - Guth

Again, forms part of our current understanding.

fkface wrote: »

Mixmaster Hypothesis - Misner

... and on and on

And this last one doesn't seem to exist outside whatever site you're copy pastaing from.

fkface wrote: »

Technology and instruments continue to improve just as the current theories on the origins of the universe continue to evolve.

The origin of the universe is a philosophical debate, nothing more.

So if the origin of the universe is only a philosophical one, why does technology play a part in it?
Why do they have to keep changing their ideas in lieu of evidence if they are just interested in sticking to their one, apparently easily debunked theory?

Rynox45

fkface wrote: »

Astronomer Robert Jastrow said

"The proposal for the creation of matter out of nothing possesses a strong appeal to the scientist, since it permits him to contemplate a Universe without beginning and without end"

This sounds a lot like people that preach religion, doesn't it?
When someone asks a reasonable question on what came before the Big Bang, just tell them it doesn't matter. Get it? :P

Throughout history, many theories were proposed on the origin of our universe.

Cartesian Hypothesis - Descartes
Nebular Hypothesis - Laplace
Tidal Hypothesis - Darwin
Planetesimal Hypothesis - Chamberlain and Moulton
Big Bang Hypothesis - Lemaitre
Ambiplasma Hypothesis - Klein
Inflationary Hypothesis - Guth
Mixmaster Hypothesis - Misner

... and on and on

Those are small selection of theories proposed by scientists over the last 400 years which have all been replaced by ever more elaborate ones.

Early astronomers that didn't have powerful enough technology to see beyond our own galaxy believed their observations and theories were fact much like a lot of cultists today.

Only when the technology became available in early 1900s was it clear the universe was much larger than just the milky way.

Technology and instruments continue to improve just as the current theories on the origins of the universe continue to evolve.

The origin of the universe is a philosophical debate, nothing more.



Some can be measured, what percentage? 5% perhaps?
Clearly the theories are inconclusive and nothing more than speculation.

We have a situation where people blindly believe it all to be fact.

Scientists don't just look for a universe without a beginning and/or an end. Depending on what type of universe this is, it may or may not end outright. I think heat death might be a certainty though, but don't take my word for it, I'm unsure.

You're right, theories are disposed of and replaced with more elaborate ones as time goes on because we learn more. It's the job of religion to come up with one theory and stick to it in spite of evidence.

I'm not sure how much physics knowledge you've got, so I'll just explain why we know we wont suddenly realise the universe we can see is bigger than we thought. Light travels at a set speed, about 3*10^8. We know that this is sort of a "cosmic speed limit" and that anything with mass can't, or shouldn't be able to, exceed this speed. Because light travels at constant speed, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is age of the universe expressed in light years.

As for your accusation that only 5% of the observable evidence listed can actually be observed, there are 7 things listed so the minimum would be around 14%, but trust me they can be observed. Go get a spectrometer and find out for yourself.

Enkidu

fkface wrote: »

Some can be measured, what percentage? 5% perhaps?
Clearly the theories are inconclusive and nothing more than speculation.

We have a situation where people blindly believe it all to be fact.

Well let us take the Cosmic Microwave background. One can look inside the CMB and see that it is composed of different "multipole moments". These are roughly the different frequencies of light found in the CMB. (Accurately a frequency is light with a specific Energy, a multipole moment is light with a specific angular momentum)

The big bang model makes very precise predictions about how much each multipole moment contributes to the over all CMB.

So, then you get radio telescopes, e.t.c. to measure the CMB and then plot how much each multipole moment contributes to it. Then plot it on a graph along with what the Big Bang predicts and you get this graph:


Our observational equipment can't measure multipoles larger than 700 too well, that is the origin of the error bars. Can you explain the incredible agreement between observation and theory in this case?

Enkidu

fkface wrote: »

Mixmaster Hypothesis - Misner

I don't know what website you got that from. Misner never proposed a theory on the origins of the universe.

"Mixmaster" is a term used in mathematical General Relativity. There are different types of scenarios in General Relativity where spacetime is very strongly curved. Misner did research into this and developed a classification scheme for these scenarios. Mixmaster is one of the categories in this classification scheme, not a theory on the origins of the universe.

andy1249

Some can be measured, what percentage? 5% perhaps?
Clearly the theories are inconclusive and nothing more than speculation.

We have a situation where people blindly believe it all to be fact.

Its absolutely astonishing that you start a thread like this about a subject you are obviously completely clueless about.

Heres an easy start for you so that you can how completely wrong you are.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Bang-Important-Scientific-Discovery/dp/0007152523/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341993499&sr=8-1

It is a history of the players in the theory , starting with Edwin Hubble , who kicked it all off with a mountain of data , it charts why the theory is now considered fact and the huge mountain of evidence that made it that way.
If you want to understand how science progresses based on data , this is a good read to start you off.

Science , believe it or not , operates on data , not hair brained ideas pulled out of the ass of a man in a dress.

Cern very publicly showed the data from many collisions in the LHC. They are certain from the data ( they even say how certain they are very precisely , 6 sigma ! ) that there is a particle they have never seen before at 125 Gev and that it is a boson.
Higgs predicted a boson at around that energy level , so in all likelihood it is what he predicted.

Next step is to study that energy level specifically and isolate that particle interaction to study its properties , and say for sure whether it behaves like Higgs particle or one of the 5 or 6 other ideas of how it may behave.

Data data data , you see how that works , cults operate on brainwashing and nonsense , no data is involved.

humanji

Not fully sure how this has gotten to 40 posts. Firstly, the thread is based on a misunderstanding of the topic. OP, as has been pointed out, a scientific theory and a layman's theory are very different. In a scientific theory (the big bang, gravity, evolution) all/the majority of evidence points towards a conclusion, but this conclusion cannot, so far, be proven. A layman's theory (religion, Justin Bieber's talent) needs little or no evidence.

People in the scientific community aren't blindly assuming that the big bang theory must be right. The evidence for it are available for anyone to find for themselves. There's little of no evidence for any other theory.

Secondly, does everyone else here really have to be so defensive and insulting towards the OP?

hooradiation

fkface wrote: »

Throughout history, many theories were proposed on the origin of our universe.

Cartesian Hypothesis - Descartes
Nebular Hypothesis - Laplace
Tidal Hypothesis - Darwin
Planetesimal Hypothesis - Chamberlain and Moulton
Big Bang Hypothesis - Lemaitre
Ambiplasma Hypothesis - Klein
Inflationary Hypothesis - Guth
Mixmaster Hypothesis - Misner

And once again, you need to learn the difference between hypothesis and theory.
How can you hope to have a debate about something when you have no grasp of even the most basic terminology?

Monty Burnz

fkface wrote: »

So the big bang is fact?

No, it's not.

That's why they call it "big bang theory"

We've tried to explain to you before what a 'theory' is in science, but it seems that didn't work.

Monty Burnz

fkface wrote: »

We haven't observed the "Big Bang" in nature that's why I find it such a stupid explanation for how the universe was created. "there was a big bang" meh.

Yea, and if nobody actually sees somebody committing a murder, then the police just shrug their shoulders and say 'nobody could solve this one'.

Monty Burnz

fkface wrote: »

I'm merely pointing out flaws in the people who follow science like a cult.

This makes me think of the people in the distant past who saw basic medicine as witchcraft. Just because you don't understand something, you shouldn't be scared of or irrationally hostile towards it - just try to read some basic science books and start filling the gaps in your knowledge.

al28283

fkface wrote: »

Oh, and you're an expert of Physics are you?

Too bad you're unable to prove conclusively the origins of our universe and instead use unfounded theories which are no more useful than believing a God created everything in the universe.

Your theories require a certain level of faith to believe in.

An intelligent person doesn't require a deep understanding of physics to see how clearly flawed some of the the scientific theories explaining the origins of our universe are.

I watched a seminar once about Black Holes and one of the audience asked the scientist what was on the other side of a black hole ...he said

"presumably a light hole"

He just picked his answer out of his own hole and now the cult believe this is exactly what's on the other end of a black hole in space despite the fact scientists have never observed what's on the other side.

Laughable science.

I refuse to believe there are people this dumb, this must be a troll

Monty Burnz

al28283 wrote: »

I refuse to believe there are people this dumb, this must be a troll

The funny thing is that we had this discussion about what a scientific theory is with Fkface a few weeks ago when he was posting as Superluck. I don't know whether he genuinely doesn't understand this stuff, or if it is a wind up.

hooradiation

humanji wrote: »

Secondly, does everyone else here really have to be so defensive and insulting towards the OP?

At a guess I'd imagine that people who being from a position of dubious honesty and make basic factual errors and then demonstrate very little interest in acknowledging or addressing said errors tend not to engender much respect or sympathy from their peers.

Just a guess mind you.

JustinDee

Jonny7 wrote: »

I have to ask, whats the conspiracy theory?

There isn't one. Just human nature. People fearing what they have no inkling of.

fkface

humanji wrote: »

Secondly, does everyone else here really have to be so defensive and insulting towards the OP?

Thank you, Humanji

People that come on this forum to insult others daily indicates how worthless their own lives are.

I just laugh at them.

Monty Burnz

fkface wrote: »

I just laugh at them.

How insulting! :pac: