Science Admits They Made Up Everything About the Big Bang

[r00t]

So there's this new proposed theory in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics that applied rainbow functions to prove that different wavelengths of light experience spacetime differently. In essence this means that the universe came from a non-singularity (i.e. discredits the big bang theory, which states everything comes from a singularity)

http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2013/10/052/

[r00t]

The paper seems to be implying that at very small distances, the amount of energy can radically change the perceived length. For example, those of us that know about General Relativity know how spacetime can be warped dramatically by gravity. Thus, assuming that energy at such small distances can also warp lengths that would mean different wavelengths of light would behave differently -- And this would be most apparent in a very hot and dense Universe AKA the Big Bang. Obviously we can't notice it today because the Universe is much too cold for it to be apparent.

That is why it would radically change how the Universe would've 'started'. One of the side-effects would be a segregation of how groups of photons of different values would behave, and hence the term 'rainbow' is used. Think of us having to take the equations that describe photons and having to split them by wavelength for example. This is similar to what a prism does through refraction.

[Bardalicious]

Cannot read article w/o subscribing.

[Bardalicious]

There's a huge difference between discrediting a scientific theory (note: theory) and discrediting it with proof. Where was yours?

[r00t]

Originally Posted by Bardalicious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's a huge difference between discrediting a scientific theory (note: theory) and discrediting it with proof. Where was yours?

I didn't have any proof, just as scientists had little to support the singularity argument. Burden of proofs on them in science. Also, my search was more for the theory of genesis (not sure if it's the same as the elusive theory of everything Hawkings and such are searching for). I said Big Bang doesn't explain how anything started, or the philosophical question of "What about the second before time began?". Rainbow Universe actually addresses this and proves original thinking of the big bang incorrect.

[r00t]

Here's another article. In Rainbow Universe, time has no beginning. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...erse-beginning

[Tanthallas]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's another article. In Rainbow Universe, time has no beginning. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...erse-beginning

Everyone who wasnt a retarded monkey who happened to learn statistics knew the big bang 'theory' was just a popularization of physics for a very long time. Critical journals and articles where largely confined to radical outlets that were not given any attention by the mainstream until very recently. Im glad real scientists are actually allowed to publish critical articles again, however.

[Archalen]

After reading the abstract, the only plausible conclusion I can make is that a Christian God does in fact exist.

[r00t]

I can't tell you how great it is being an actual scientist not just listening to what I'm told, applying critical thinking and calling the big bang theory bullshit for years; and now being proven right.

[Heebo]

Terrible TV show