Why there is something, rather then nothing?

scientific empirical evidence has all but discredited it long ago.
Show me the peer reviewed journal article in the tier 1 scientific publication that states that. Otherwise, don’t drag this out until the eventual heat death of the universe.
 
Show me the peer reviewed journal article in the tier 1 scientific publication that states that. Otherwise, don’t drag this out until the eventual heat death of the universe.

Why the condescending tone? Who’s dragging anything out lol.

I commented on some responses properly.

I replied to the post with what modern science postulates and holds today at the present moment.

It’s seems you are attempting to turn the narrative into confrontational rhetoric.

The poster’s question is the topic …I’ve responded.

Cordial discussion and dialog is expected. Yes?

fyi….there is no “peer reviewed” papers for any cosmological model nor theory …including the Big Bang lambdaCDM Standard Model.

The reason no peer reviewed for the Big Bang is it’s missing 96% of the theory! Dark Energy & Dark Matter. They been searching for these for over 50 years and to this day nary a whimper. They are still holding onto it because of other evidence but those evidence can be attributed to other causes other than a Big Bang. Hence again …no peer review

fyi….Einstein’s Relativity Theories have no peer reviewed papers.

Why? It’s similar in situation to the Big Bang theory. They’re theories that have other qualities that have yet to be discovered and proven. …hence no peer review. They however supposedly discovered 1 recently ….gravitational waves.

All they have are like pieces of puzzle evidence but missing massive puzzle parts. Again…hence no peer review.

Yet….they are all taught not as theories but as fact.

And you are demanding peer review lol

The scientific empirical evidence that literally obliterates the standard model are numerous and documented by several universities and other scientific organizations. (Hence again why no peer review for the Big Bang?)

But that is not the subject of this post and will hijack the thread.

Again the poster’s question as others recently has qualities of a loaded question.

It’s similar to “Why are we here?” & “What is the purpose of life?”

Answering the questions is bordering on breaking forum rules.

Everyone on the thread are walking on thin ice with such questions.

If one wishes to lock a thread all they simply need to do is show being offended and bait nasty exchanges.

I’m sticking with scientific empirical evidence.
 
Whatever that something is, it is conditioned and becomes nothing when the conditions are not there

When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.
It's a definitional problem. How do you define "nothing" when you do not all that there is? Absence of <these known things>? There will be regions containing what you cannot yet see.

But, does it matter? How does nothing effect you?
 
Could be? "Of course we are living in a snow globe on some kids desk, duh!" has been my mantra so far! Do NOT want to leave this snow globe (snow globe doubters need not respond - I can't hear you - I am inside a snow globe)!! All the happy smiley plastic faces, bright moments, forget about it!!!
LoL! plastic people living in a bubble - sounds about right.
 
"Yet….they are all taught not as theories but as fact."

I don't know about that. I got a degree in Astrophysics and I can tell you these were all described as theories. It's not for nothing that we talk about 'the theory of relativity' and the 'standard model'.
 
It's a definitional problem. How do you define "nothing" when you do not all that there is? Absence of <these known things>? There will be regions containing what you cannot yet see.

But, does it matter? How does nothing effect you?

If we really want to realize nothingness, beyond conjectures, we should start practicing deep meditation. Because as long as we are thinking and conceptualizing, we are on the realm of "something"
 
Last edited:
"Yet….they are all taught not as theories but as fact."

I don't know about that. I got a degree in Astrophysics and I can tell you these were all described as theories. It's not for nothing that we talk about 'the theory of relativity' and the 'standard model'.

Einstein is the reigning paradigm. Anyone who defies Einstein gets shown the door.

The world accepts Einstein almost like a savior. Einstein was an instant celebrity worldwide.

Yes they are theories but not at all treated as a theory.

I was asked to provide peer reviewed papers here on evidence totally discrediting the Big Bang.

It’s assumes the Big Bang is peer reviewed and factual no longer a theory.

Same thing with Einstein
 
Peer review was not a common way of vetting papers at the time relativity and the Big Bang were proposed, as you probably know. Yet you claim they were not peer reviewed because "they’re theories that have other qualities that have yet to be discovered". Not true. You claim these theories are taught as fact. Not true.
These are well-established theories, accepted by most who work in the filed, If you want to say they have been 'literally obliterated', the burden for providing some evidence for that is on you. The request for peer-reviewed proof in no way implies or assumed that the Big Bang is peered reviewed and factual. There's no logical connection there at all.
 
Peer review was not a common way of vetting papers at the time relativity and the Big Bang were proposed, as you probably know. Yet you claim they were not peer reviewed because "they’re theories that have other qualities that have yet to be discovered". Not true. You claim these theories are taught as fact. Not true.
These are well-established theories, accepted by most who work in the filed, If you want to say they have been 'literally obliterated', the burden for providing some evidence for that is on you. The request for peer-reviewed proof in no way implies or assumed that the Big Bang is peered reviewed and factual. There's no logical connection there at all.

My point exactly ….why demand peer review as criteria for credibility for things that obviously is not required for acceptability? And nothing today stopping the process for the Big Bang and Einstein’s Relativity.

Both theories are not at all credibly well established theories.

Here’s 2 examples for each:

With Einstein’s Relativity:

In his 1905 Special Relativity he gets rid of the aether that was widely accepted up to that point. The aether was instrumental with Maxwell developing his monumental electromagnet radiation theory. His work is considered the “2nd great unification in physics”. Einstein had a hard time and struggled to get rid of it however he needed to get rid of it which he “single handedly” did. Einstein then establishes the earth moving and established light as the constant with nothing able to travel faster than light.

In practice his 1905 STR is useless as he did not account for the forces of gravity, inertial, centrifugal, Euler and other forces in the universe. It cannot make real world predictions.

Knowing this ….he then works on accounting for those forces. 10 years later he introduces to the world his General Theory of Relativity.

In his 1915 GTR Einstein brings back the aether, justifies the Earth static in the center of the universe and now has the speed of light not constant and now any object can travel at practically any speed above the speed of light! Lol

The 2 theories totally contradict each other! Lol

Even if introduced today how can such peer review be performed? Lol

Hence …No peer review as nothing is stopping anyone from having those papers “peer reviewed”

Einstein did all these without a telescope!

And again with the Big Bang …how the heck can it be firmly established when it’s missing 96% of the theory? Dark energy and Dark Matter. It has so much incredible problems with fixes and bootstraps that there is an ongoing petition with physicists to abandon the theory altogether.

Yes …all the other parameters of the smaller puzzles supposedly fits like a glove they say…but huge missing pieces are deemed ugly with no hope for legitimate bootstraps.

No wonder no peer reviewed papers for the theory itself. Yet…the Big Bang is established as fact lol

As I pointed out before the evidence requested addresses both theories and is substantial and readily available but would no doubt hijack this thread by flooding with countless links.
 
Last edited:
Why the condescending tone?
It's not condescending. "Tone" is an audible quality that cannot be conveyed in written format.

What I intend to convey is my displeasure that you are writing what you are writing with an air of false authority and I am pointing out that what you have written is not only factually incorrect, but thoroughly unsupportable by legitimate scientific rigor.

You saying that facts are readily available is the biggest and most beautiful of deflections. Now you get to preach nonsense unabated from high atop the glass plinth you've sculpted for yourself, and then push the onus on everyone else to "do your research" (a common troll tactic) so you don't have to, then back out of the conversation as if you've won another rhetorical round. You have not. All you have done is string together some vocabulary to bamboozle people into thinking you're some sort of transcendental floating head genius who sees, knows and understands all.

I asked you to provide some valid evidence other than your own words to support your claim that the Big Bang Theory has long since been disproven and you have eshaustively done anything except that, because you can't, because it's not even close to being true.
 
It's not condescending. "Tone" is an audible quality that cannot be conveyed in written format.

What I intend to convey is my displeasure that you are writing what you are writing with an air of false authority and I am pointing out that what you have written is not only factually incorrect, but thoroughly unsupportable by legitimate scientific rigor.

You saying that facts are readily available is the biggest and most beautiful of deflections. Now you get to preach nonsense unabated from high atop the glass plinth you've sculpted for yourself, and then push the onus on everyone else to "do your research" (a common troll tactic) so you don't have to, then back out of the conversation as if you've won another rhetorical round. You have not. All you have done is string together some vocabulary to bamboozle people into thinking you're some sort of transcendental floating head genius who sees, knows and understands all.

I asked you to provide some valid evidence other than your own words to support your claim that the Big Bang Theory has long since been disproven and you have eshaustively done anything except that, because you can't, because it's not even close to being true.

Again the condescending rhetoric …

I will not stoop to your candor 👍🏻

What is so hard in grasping the fact that the Big Bang has been missing 96% of its requirement?

Dark Energy and Dark Matter ….

They’ve been painstakingly searching for over 50 years 🤷🏻‍♂️

Physicists are petitioning and calling for it’s abandonment…

It’s got serious problems ….

And you want peer reviewed lol
 
It's not condescending. "Tone" is an audible quality that cannot be conveyed in written format.

What I intend to convey is my displeasure that you are writing what you are writing with an air of false authority and I am pointing out that what you have written is not only factually incorrect, but thoroughly unsupportable by legitimate scientific rigor.

You saying that facts are readily available is the biggest and most beautiful of deflections. Now you get to preach nonsense unabated from high atop the glass plinth you've sculpted for yourself, and then push the onus on everyone else to "do your research" (a common troll tactic) so you don't have to, then back out of the conversation as if you've won another rhetorical round. You have not. All you have done is string together some vocabulary to bamboozle people into thinking you're some sort of transcendental floating head genius who sees, knows and understands all.

I asked you to provide some valid evidence other than your own words to support your claim that the Big Bang Theory has long since been disproven and you have eshaustively done anything except that, because you can't, because it's not even close to being true.

Tell you what ….and not to prove you wrong at all …and assuming that you are sincere in your request

But to show I’m not using my so called “know it all knowledge” ….

Should the moderators allow me to post the evidence links from established reputable and credible sources at the risk of hijacking thread ….

Only then will I post the numerous links

Cool? 👍🏻
 
Again the condescending rhetoric …

I will not stoop to your candor 👍🏻

What is so hard in grasping the fact that the Big Bang has been missing 96% of its requirement?

Dark Energy and Dark Matter ….

They’ve been painstakingly searching for over 50 years 🤷🏻‍♂️

Physicists are petitioning and calling for it’s abandonment…

It’s got serious problems ….

And you want peer reviewed lol
"Candor" is not something one can stoop to.

"Condescending" implies it's not well deserved.

"Dark Energy and Dark Matter …." Sentence fragment, consider revising.

"Physicists are petitioning and calling for it’s abandonment…" Again, show credible published evidence of this.

Yes, I still want legitimate scientific rigor, not your grasping to maintain your argument with vagary,
 
The request for peer-reviewed proof in no way implies or assumed that the Big Bang is peered reviewed and factual. There's no logical connection there at all.
Exactly. I would happily accept legitimate evidence in support the null hypothesis.
 
"Candor" is not something one can stoop to.

"Condescending" implies it's not well deserved.

"Dark Energy and Dark Matter …." Sentence fragment, consider revising.

"Physicists are petitioning and calling for it’s abandonment…" Again, show credible published evidence of this.

Yes, I still want legitimate scientific rigor, not your grasping to maintain your argument with vagary,

Your “grasping to maintain” …is your personal and provoked accusation…and totally uncalled for 👎🏻

My personal thoughts is you desperately grasping to lock the thread 🙄
 
Last edited:
Exactly. I would happily accept legitimate evidence in support the null hypothesis.

Lol….the evidence is not just overwhelming…but astounding and astonishing as well.

NASA, ESA, U of M….etc…they’re all at a loss for words lol

Did I not say I want to stick with scientific empirical evidence? Lol
 
Last edited:
some think the bang will eventually run out of gas and stop expanding, and there'll be a big crunch where everthing starts contracting, eventually to nothing again, at which time we'll have a thread called "why there is nothing, rather then something - discuss"; and Fractalites will rejoice, cuz the thread can't be something, cuz, like, there's only nothing eH!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom