The Real Crisis in Cosmology - The Universe is Too Old for a Big Bang

[@Siiello]

"This sweater was knitted by hand 40 years ago around the same time I started to look at the issues with the Big Bang Theory, as you can see that sweater has held up a lot better than the Big Bang Theory." LMAOOO GOLD!!!! AHHHHH OWNED! BURNN!!!!

[@warrenmanning7991]

😂😂😂

[@Siiello]

@@regrettingwords7773 Excuse you, my comment was focused only on enjoying the joke he made. From what of that makes you suggest that I could not understand anything else?

[@onehitpick9758]

My favorite quote from this is "Only in cosmology can you get a more precise prediction by adding more uncertainty and more ad hoc hypotheses." Cosmologists don't know how to define uncertainty, much less propagate it. Believe me -- I've helped many with their homework. They just don't get it.

[@harleyxxfabco]

Ad hoc hypotheses and uncertainty are the backbone of the Drake Equation and why I never believed it.

[@onehitpick9758]

Hubble has absolutely disproved the validity of the CMB by showing that there are hundreds of thousands of galaxies (each with hundreds of billions of stars) in each and every pixel (angular resolution cell) of it's measurement. Anybody adept at cancellation theory will know that they can't cancel the Milky Way out of the extremely sensitive background measurement, but even those who aren't familiar with adaptive processing will also know immediately that it is not possible to cancel 200000*100000000000 stars out of a pixel of something much more distant and faint, and in-band, even with coherent non-blind source processing which they don't have.

[@fivish]

The CBR is not even what they say it is as the Big Bang never happened!

[@Aurinkohirvi]

Yeah, this is very interesting, and it is great that you bring forth these observations. The more known and public they become, the more there will be discussion and more suggestions, which is all good. I don't study your field, but I've been interested of astronomy since preteen. These videos are great!

[@trucid2]

Love the series! Keep it up.

[@direbearcoat7551]

He is using their own predictions and their own formulas to disprove their own theories!! That's the strongest argument that anyone can make, if you want to take down a theory that is jealously guarded by an institution of academicians!!

[@philjamieson5572]

Direbear Coat: True. Well said.

[@emanuelben9565]

i know im randomly asking but does someone know a way to get back into an Instagram account? I stupidly forgot the password. I would love any help you can give me!

[@devonabraham3588]

@Emanuel Ben instablaster :)

[@direbearcoat7551]

@@emanuelben9565 Hmmm..... How about asking Tech Support at Instagram? Do they have one of those? Or maybe look at their FAQ. There might be something there about recovering an account due to a forgotten password. Right? Am I right?

[@wadostina]

Great job for keeping it going . The problem with modern science and academia is that the majority gets tunnel vision and get stuck on same things,with controdicts the purpose of science to explore different aspects,ask more questions,think outside the box. And if somebody does, they get attacked and dismissed,instead of having healthy debate. I call that "donkey behavior", because it's easier not to move forward, being afraid of something new. Open mind is rare commodity in our time.

[@tonyggir]

I have never believed how the mass of billions of stars and planets in billions of galaxies could be compressed into a single small point. Makes no sense

[@robheusd]

Yet ultra massive black holes do just that, and we pretty sure know such giant black holes exist. So we can not rely just on human intuition to probe such scientific issues.

[@DMBall]

Very interesting, as always. A refreshing dose of skepticism about theories - the big bang, inflation, dark matter - that never made complete sense, no matter how dogmatically their adherents repeated them.

[@meunierbr]

Well done! Thank you. I can not describe the repeating sense of nausea felt in lecture after lecture simply regurgitating old dogma in the face of new data. Thank you!

[@mathewmunro3770]

One idea I just had that might explain why there might be objects far older than the age of the universe as calculated by winding back the observable universe to a singularity, is to presume that the universe extends way beyond the observable universe, and to presume that it came from a fountain that continuously spewed forth of space, energy & matter over a very long time, perhaps eternally.

[@letsRegulateSociopaths]

the prediction of the big bang reminds me of the idea of "dark matter", an idea made up to fit the universe into the idea, rather than the idea to the universe...

[@scotthawkins8707]

Third Video was the BEST so far... Thank You so much. aloha

[@nobigbang825]

Excellent channel.

[@Phelan666]

The sweater proved to be too powerful.

[@Paladin1873]

One question that has always puzzled me is how you measure time when everything is moving at tremendous speeds at the moment of the Big Bang. Wouldn't their speed alter the nature of time until they slowed down sufficiently, or is this a minuscule part of the issue?

[@harleyxxfabco]

Because the size of the universe is exponentially larger than it should be based on the evidence, they added in the theory of inflation. There is no explanation as to what caused the inflation, they just casually say we went though inflation as if no explanation is necessary. This is bad science.

[@Paladin1873]

@@harleyxxfabco Thanks, now I'll have to research inflation.

[@bobthesir1467]

Could you do a refutation of the red shift phenomenon?

[@ArcaneTurbulence]

Hubble already did that 6 years after his first theory. Although nobody ever hears about it because it became "God" in the Cosmology world..

[@WanderingPilgrim]

Thanks! Looking forward to the next episode.

[@direbearcoat7551]

And about a month ago, the Big Bang-ers, based on JWST images of distant galaxies, were forced to double the age of the universe. Now they are saying that the Universe is 24 to 26 billion years old....

[@digbysirchickentf2315]

I would expect an even distribution of large masses on average, so if it seems that there are more the further you look, then perhaps the way we estimate size or distance is wrong.

[@sirpente6651]

If only Hannes Alfven could had been here to see these videos, he would be proud and pleased. R.I.P.

[@DiscoGreen]

Thanks for these videos!

[@markupton1417]

All kidding aside...I love this guy!

[@aquarionh2o132]

Love your videos, all of them, but especially the ones the crush the Big Bang theory.

[@eev24eshmolikali]

What about the research on Cold Fusion and Z.P.E. energy devices? Sounds much cheaper than Hot Fusion devices.

[@AnoNymous-js7qy]

I wrote in a comment, you work on real physics based on obersvations. I can see that you don't close your eyes from evidence against much stuff of the standard model, but in some points you don't get that there are more problems. There's evidence against the postulate redshift equals velocity equals distance .... Halton Arps work is hard to ignore ...

[@AnoNymous-js7qy]

You talk about filaments of plasma. For a gamma ray burst you only need a high energy plasma filament that gets unstable and does a z-pinch. There's no huge object required, only a LOT of Ampere.

[@norenemies]

always ahead!

[@MrApplewine]

It also seems insane that the Earth would be 1/3rd the age of the universe. That just seems ridiculous for those numbers to be so close.

[@donaldclifford5763]

I agree.

[@onehitpick9758]

I agree. This was one of my basic arguments to folk who couldn't perceive the bigger picture and math: "Why is the earth roughly the same age as the universe?" I have gotten no sufficient answers for this. This proved to be to difficult to understand, so I have moved to the 200000+ shining galaxies as seen in Hubble X Deep field that must also be in every pixel of Planck, which just leaves them in retreat.

[@MrApplewine]

@@onehitpick9758 Could you explain that one more?

[@seymoronion8371]

@@MrApplewine I think the gist of what he was saying is the following (Correct me if I'm wrong): Galaxies are microwave sources. As are stars, gas, plasma, dust, and so on. They do not have enough data to accurately choose what to omit when generating CMB Maps. They guess based on computer models, not direct measurements.

[@seymoronion8371]

@@MrApplewine It's sort of like taking a photograph (with a consumer-grade, off-the-shelf digital camera) of, let's say, a crowd of people walking down the street in an orderly manner. Then taking that picture into photoshop and resizing it to 1x1 (or 2x2) pixels in size, then resizing that back to the original size of the photo. What you are left with is a blob consisting of up to four colors. There is no way to tell what the original picture was from the blob alone.

[@jfjsas07]

But if the universe can be so much older than 13.8B years, then why can't we just look with the telescopes at some objects that are for example 20B light years away, i.e. they are 20B years old and see for sure whether the universe is older than 13.8B years? By the way, you said in the episode 1 that you gave 100% for deuterium sir, why are you giving 0 in here? (I mean, if it's a mistake, I would strongly advise to correct it, because some skeptic here may say that this is a manipulation to debunk the BB even more, even though it doesn't seem at all that you are manipulating at any point, since you are using clear and factual arguments).

[@IkeReviews]

I believe the expansion of the universe is more of the universe being visible to us

[@ferencgraca7574]

On the basis of what You state, comes the idea, that the CMB is merely the heat-radiation of much farter galaxies in the endless universe and not the remainder of the big bang... Greetings, Feri

[@lorinori3776]

Is there any information on what these massive objects could be?

[@philjamieson5572]

Thanks for another excellent episode. There's such food for my hungry old brain in these.

[@johnfmartin2576]

Thank you Eric. It seems that Hubble's intuition about velocities derived from redshift calculations as being "apparent velocities" (as apposed to "actual velocities") has been lost through time. I've often wondered in vain about other possible causes of redshift (such as the unworkable concept of photon energy decay, for example). I remain extremely skeptical about Lemaître's Big Bang Theory for other various reasons. Please keep up the good work. I'm very grateful that you have given me many fresh ideas to ponder

[@kennethyoung7564]

I was skeptical because it seemed to close to ex nihilo creation-creation from nothing. I am actually a Theist, but I believe in an infinite universe that has no beginning. It seemed that the big bang seemed too close to the catholic idea of creation from a single point from an unmoved mover, vs what I believe which would be if there are intelligent agents within the universe, they are part of a universe that is bigger then themselves.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Euler's observation of WYSIWYG function in Dirac's terms of reciprocation-recirculation potential of 137 potential distribution by logarithmic prime-cofactor Partitioning condensation, is sufficiently convincing to an awareness of real-time relative-timing Actuality consciousness. (It still takes a lifetime of reiteration to unfool your Self)

[@timbuktu5505]

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Inflation. Haunted Houses, Spirits, and Runaway Balloons.

[@VanceWoodward]

Couldn’t the large structures be explained as revealing a heterogeneous distribution of matter that existed before inflation happened, like the cmb? Thanks.

[@mrcelada]

What object is 80 billion years old? I googled it and cant find it!

[@IkeReviews]

There is a star older than the universe

[@PenfoldIV]

Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall

[@Experterrors]

I’m not an expert in cosmology to be sure, but my understanding is that the large structure seen in the current state of the universe can be accounted for by density variations during the inflationary period. So, minor clumps in the early inflation period produce large scale clumps in current observations. I would appreciate it if you would address this hypothesis.

[@LPPFusion]

Right, but the clumps are supposed to be still tiny ripples at the time the CMB forms, long after inflation is hypothesized to end. Theorists still have to get from tiny ripples to huge objects and there is not enough time, even with expansion.

[@Educated_Guesser]

It is well and good to explore the possibility that dark matter exists. To firmly believe that it actually does exist (for convenience sake) has become something of a religion though.

[@PádraigJMCarey]

then how do you explain the measurements (eg. gravitational lensing) that proves it's there? comparing a known and measurable scientific fact with religion reeks of ignorance.

[@misterjib]

Hello Brian May! Are you the Brian May I'm thinking of!?

[@arahant69]

I also think the thunderboltsofthegods theory of the electric universe model is true too i.e. birkeland currents.

[@jettmthebluedragon]

I wonder how can the universe really be only be 14 billion years 🤔? It does not make since 😐it seems that the universe could be much much older 😑 I also have realized their could be some sort of link between life and death 🤔after all what do you remember before you were born?🤔that’s right nothing 😑and when you die you become nothing 😐 in fact I have realized when you die it will be as if you did not exist in the first place 😐

[@alex79suited]

But Hubble retracted that aspect along with Einstein where as the uncertainty that the light could be stretched do to distance rather than expansion gave pause to predicting. And instead gave caution to using this for measurement where as it could be unpredictable. Lerner is correct and that's where this comes from I think. And was also the reason lambda was taken out of his equation. So when they say einshtein was right even when he was wrong what's happening is these scientists are putting lambda back in einshteins equation for the purpose of verification of the big bang. Was einshtein and Hubble correct to retract lambda? Lerner is say yes the were correct.

[@katmanclancy]

Watching here in southern Ireland,was it based on an arran sweater fisherman's rib...

[@georgeprokopenko3044]

Check.

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

Humble's redshifting is nothing more than a Dopler phenomenon which happens as a result of the huge distance that light has to pass to come to the observer, and at the same time the object of interest, has changed his spot of existence but continues to send light to the observer. So like a Dopler's effect, we have a real light frequency and one of observation. Also, the term law needs a prediction for every galaxy distances, and not only for galaxies in different clusters, or it has to give us a formula of that. It has to explain and the collisions of galaxies using in a formula the same constant like "H" which also, unfortunately, isn't constant at all. So, what Humble's law in cosmology are we tocking about?

[@igghs5686]

Hi. I'm not sure if you use it anymore, but a few months ago I sent a few questions to your email address listed on the Big Bang Never Happened website, although I have yet to receive a reply. My email was titled "Is creative potential truly infinite?" I'd be grateful if I could get my questions answered. Thanks for everything.

[@alex79suited]

But regardless of Lerner there was a starting position and in any event they will say it's still a big bang. Maybe just a bang. Or starting position.

[@KaliFissure]

@LLPFusion I can’t believe I made those previous comments before reading Bosticks work. What didn’t work out in his plasma particle models? I must find out. Re Age of universe. The gold proportion is way off the mark. Much too much for 14by. I make fun that they should apply e to all their predictions since this an ongoing thing and not a one shot. Re Galaxy formation we need to figure out a Reynolds number for interstellar matter to calculate the turbulence character. This process of turning linear into toroidal is characteristic of plasma. The la4ge scale filaments are clusters of magnetic flux lines and with analysis im sure this will become evident and a proper cyclical process in the universe will be understood.

[@benjones1054]

I doubt the legitimacy of The Hubble Constant. They should measure the rate at which two very distant galaxies, say 8 and 6 billion ly from us and 10 billion ly from each other, are separating.

[@libertysprings2244]

If we are accelerating toward some Great Attractor area or whatever, it would appear as if the rest of the universe is expanding. Any light from any direction outside the enormous local gravity well would redshift as it goes into the gravity well until it's reached our equivalent height above the well-center Even if the light has to cross farther inside the gravity well than we are before getting to us, the light waves would redshift first until our orbital height above the center of the well, then blueshift toward center and equally redshift back to our orbital level, still being a net redshift the same as light coming from other directions outside the local gravity well. Just an idea. I always thought it was super lame that people thought the universe was only 13 billion yrs old or something. That never made sense

[@stewartcaldwell5299]

I have never believed the big bang theory. I'm near 70. A singularity has no incentive to change state.

[@stewartcaldwell5299]

@Robert Loewe If you weren't there filming and watching, you don't know either.

[@splat752]

@Robert Loewe What experimental evidence is for this without invoking a circular argument of "here we are so it must be true"?

[@robheusd]

The universe only censors naked singularities, they are hidden behind horizons. The initial singularity is hidden behind the cosmological horizon, and the singularity of a black hole center is hidden behind the event horizon. You are allowed to take a peek inside but not allowed to come back and tell your friends about it. The universe has its ways to protects its secrets....

[@paulmorgan4369]

I am coming to terms with most of this although I am coming to realise that the idea of some structures being too large to have formed since the alleged big bang is based upon a non-expanding universe model. The premise being that if the universe were expanding, it would have been a lot smaller in the past than it is now. If galaxies are travelling at up to 1000 km per second, of course they wouldn't have had the necessary time to form in the 14.5 billion years approx. The central question is then: Is the universe expanding. I could easily come to terms with Halton Arp's galaxies which displayed a non-cosmological red-shift; that's a lot easier to come to terms with because he was supported by a number of observational astronomers, Margaret Burridge, for example. If anyone can provide some links to evidence the universe isn't expanding at all, I'd like to see them. It seems a quantum leap for me to reject the expanding universe model without a great deal of evidence not all of which should appear with complex mathematical formulae, but with observational data as well. If anyone wishes to provide some links or perhaps a reasoned explanation, I'd greatly appreciate that effort.

[@Blues.Fusion]

So if you are saying there was no start to the universe, then address the issue of conservation on energy. Or who put the woodpile up and lit the first match. I know, that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Its certainly a question that's is begging.

[@mrcelada]

But on the other hand, if the big bang never happened, how can it be that there is so many objects younger than 14 billion years? Something important happened at this time.

[@mcgarrydware]

Most of the cells in your body are less than seven years old. In the same way a galaxy could be hundreds of billions of years old while the average age of the stars that make it up could be less than seven billion years. The earth is about four billion years old but is made up of material that has cycled through many stars. Material that would have spent many billions of years travelling through space from the death of one star to the birth of another. Stars that would have had an average life span of several billion years. To believe that all that could happen in 13.4 billion years defies any kind of logic.

[@harryviking6347]

As in much else, Big Bang is a theory....so is this man's solutions! Welcome next theory!

[@Dutch2go]

Actually, you’re wrong. Plasma cosmology has been proven and observed over and over in the last 50 years. Not so with the Big Bang.

[@harryviking6347]

@@Dutch2go so, why do we not hear to much of it? If I miss any vdo's about it, please inform me...

[@Dutch2go]

harry viking - not sure if you’re bring serious here. Do you honestly hold the view that if something has not been heard by you, it must be either non-existent, unreal or unproven? Research of an open mind is an active and time consuming effort, not a passive, “whatever vids come to my ears are true” mentality. Research is not the same as a meme that goes viral and comes to your ears without any effort on your part. Get real, and get serious about research, and spend some time reading books and scientific papers, instead of hanging on KZbin all the time. Let me guess, you are a Millennial or GenZ?

[@harryviking6347]

@@Dutch2go I always keep an open mind to whatever is being discovered. But as you know, there is no good proof of anything about the "beginning" as I see it, so I just observe what is said, and then just await whatever comes up next.

[@Dutch2go]

harry viking - you appear to have the mistaken belief that plasma cosmology teaches about the “beginning.” It’s quite the opposite. Plasma cosmology teaches that there was no such thing. The concept of a “beginning” (I.e. Big Bang) is a faith instituted in the first part of the 20th century - it is not science.

[@justsaying3594]

I've never understood how they determine the age of the universe while also stating all we can see is the observable universe. Then go on to state that the observable universe is only a fraction of the true universe. Also the further back in time we look the faster things are moving away from us somehow proves that the expansion is speeding up. This seems like backward logic to me.

[@Studies.8697]

So .universe is eternal?

[@nobigbang825]

No mortal knows.

[@IkeReviews]

Yes it always has

[@Studies.8697]

@@IkeReviews how? science taught us that it has. A beginning......how u said this?

[@IkeReviews]

@@Studies.8697 humanity cannot comprehend eternity. So made up the big bang and the end of the universe to have a concept of time.

[@Studies.8697]

@@IkeReviews but in reality this is not told by humanity but told ny the science....the biggest evidence is of hubble telescope experiment..

[@Eweyouhew]

There is a star in the Milky Way Galaxy that is 14G years old. Methuselah Star.

[@0neBadMonkey]

Thank you. Honestly, I don't quite understand your explanation of calculating age based on speed and size, I'll rewatch now and try to get my head around it as everything you claim hinged on that. Suggestion 1: Please don't take as long between videos. Frequent posts will benefit you with the KZbin algorithm and us viewers have REALLY short attention spans. Suggestion 2: Get involved with other KZbinrs. I would suggest Joe Scott (Answers with Jo) or Dr Becky Smethurst (Dr Becky) Suggestion 3: Get some already in the public eye on your side. For Example, Robert Zubrin would probably be happy to chat with you (he did mention you in his book 'The Case for Space').

[@jaakkopontinen]

+1, Joe would be delighted in having you.

[@makeaguitarnoise]

Webb telescope should settle all these arguments?

[@seanjoseph8637]

Haven't they recently "found" the missing Lithium?

[@rogerscottcathey]

This is what I might expect if Tesla were alive and talking on yt.

[@rkreike]

?The universe began as infinite emptiness and somehow there came matter into existance. The first matter didn’t contain atoms and molecules, and it took a long time with evolution before clouds and objects transformed matter without atoms into matter and objects with atoms, elements and molecules. While variety of matter increased, also water, oxygen, photosynteses came into the universe, creating the conditions for life… Or not?

[@xecyc7951]

We know about quantum fluctuations, quantum vacuum, so emptiness is not empty, there's always something there, particles and fields popping in and out of existence. So in combination with infinity everything could have happened in an instant, like the Higgs field having an infinite amount of time to give particles their mass. Time is meaningless without mass, at the same time particles without mass do not experience time, things just came into existence in an instant from vacuum energy, it's a cool subject. The more we know about quantum mechanics and the farther we look back into the universe, the more we realize that a big bang is not needed. It's nice to hear Roger Penrose too, his cyclic model doesn't need dark matter or a big bang implosion, it's based on infinite expansion where quantum fluctuations eventually dominate the universe.

[@WinrichNaujoks]

Prof. Krauss and Guth have absolutely nothing to say on this?

[@WinrichNaujoks]

@Robert Loewe Debunk it for me please!

[@itsrdr3708]

Robert Loewe < I can Debunk it > doesn’t debunk it Lmfao

[@WinrichNaujoks]

@@itsrdr3708 He's just a troll

[@seymoronion8371]

@@itsrdr3708 Perhaps he had to leave unexpectedly to protect his friend William, who was in danger, yet again.

[@XDukeInstinct]

1:55 Big Bang REKT

[@sychrovsky]

It is called a lepra sweater by me

[@letsRegulateSociopaths]

even the mere idea of a creation of the universe (big bang) seems so outrageous and juvenile. After all, it begs the question of what was before....creation is was and will always be and seems to be a remnant of consciousness rather than the other way around...

[@mcgarrydware]

The Big Bang theory came about as a result of an alignment of a set of observations and a very old idea. The observations being the red shift of all the galaxies and the old idea being the one about creation. This happened at a time when science was replacing religion and to get a true scientist to admit to believing in a god was a hard thing to do. The Big Bang theory put a halt on that to such an extent that nowadays you would be hard pressed to find a scientist who does not profess some form of spirituality. So the big Bang theory has become a very special commodity and a large number of people are very invested in its survival. The observations that Hubble made were of huge importance its just that they didn't necessarily mean the galaxies were moving away. Light can also be red shifted by passing through dust clouds. It doesn't seem that great a leap to imagine that there might be some dust hanging around in the vacuum of space . The problem with that idea is "Where is all the dust coming from". You can't have matter appearing out of nowhere. Matter cannot be created of destroyed only transformed. The irony that they can believe that all matter in the universe can be created in one go but can in no way believe that in every cubic kilometre of space once or twice a year a particle is formed completely escapes them. They then say an infinite universe would be full of matter if that was the case. I say what do you think black holes are for then. They then say why is the night sky not bright as day and I say "Doah The light is red shifted into the micro wave region and beyond and so accounts for the CMB. Of course the great irony of the Big Bang theory is that it needs God for it to work. One needs the Big Bang theory to believe in God and one needs to believe in God to accept the failings of the Big Bang theory. The major failing being the need for faster than light expansion to get get to where we are today. I am sure in a few years they will be working out that faster than light expansion would involve some time dilation. This in turn will lead them to discover that the actual time taken since the Big Bang was about six thousand years and that the Bible was right all along. If you are making stuff up there is no limit to how far your imagination can take you. The fact that every single observation proving the Big Bang actually proves the exact opposite will not hinder you.

[@maniacpwnageking]

I actually can't tell if this is satire.

[@mcgarrydware]

@@maniacpwnageking It may have been satire at first but today I am looking at an article saying that Astronomers have discovered time dilation in the early universe. What can I say I must be physic or a genius. What do you think..

[@RiaGuy]

This aged well

[@tonyb8660]

my pchem lab prof would flunk you straight up w/o very elaborate error analysis

[@josephdillon9698]

I thought theoretical physics was the dumbest thing imaginable but I’m not the smartest guy ever so I didn’t know if I was just too dumb to understand. But I live in the real world and you can’t do anything theoretically in my world. Hey I can cook you a great dinner theoretically you give me $500 I’ll give you the math. Yeah I’ll fix your car just give me $400 I’ll write down theories. I mean cmon theirs gotta be something wrong here. Thanks for letting me know I’m not just stupid. I mean it takes an idiot to figure out this is bull but I needed someone smart to confirm that I guess.

[@arthurrobey7177]

The destruction of a model should be greeted with whoops of joy, for that is the nature of creative destruction. Most miss the party by sulking.

[@PádraigJMCarey]

keen for the evidence that there is no dark matter - especially the measurable impact it has on galaxy spin rates which indicates they can't exist without this other 'missing' matter. Are you simply stating that the fundamental physics of gravity are 'wrong'?

[@LPPFusion]

evidence against DM in the next episode. Explanation of galaxy spins in the one after that.

[@Dutch2go]

At least your sweater is real - the Big Bang is not.

[@markupton1417]

Doofus Rick...you know...Rick & Morty....

[@sparkyy0007]

I believe the universe is very young, and that's where the evidence is pointing.

[@sparkyy0007]

@Rombert Dillahuntsvalle If you say so...

[@sparkyy0007]

@Rombert Dillahuntsvalle Yes that would be true on either side of this disagreement, but we can both agree on one thing, only one side is correct.

[@sparkyy0007]

@Rombert Dillahuntsvalle I'll bite, how long does it take to domesticate a dog ?

[@sparkyy0007]

@Rombert Dillahuntsvalle go on...

[@seanjoseph8637]

He literally just said there are objects that have to be billions of years older than the "big bang" the Universe is ancient in human terms.

[@TropicalCoder]

Your hypothese does not jive with my layman's level of knowledge of the Big Bang Theory. Obviously if the Universe began from a single point, as we look back in time the overall density of the Universe must increase dramatically, and therefore structures would be necessarily larger and more dense the further we go back.

[@mrtactica]

... or the universe is very young ... and the science supports this idea

[@mekoeneko]

The universe is infinitely old.

[@splat752]

@@mekoeneko Have we even observed any objects, with our telescopes, that are infinitely old?

[@mekoeneko]

@@splat752 I didn't say "objects" I said the universe is infinetely old. And yes, we have observed objects older than the supposed age of the universe.

[@nobigbang825]

The big bang is nothing more than a cash-cow for the Vatican, after all, Georges Lamettre invented this nonsense (cosmic egg) to validate the biblical genesis. Anyone subscribe to it has a feeble cerebral syndrome.

[@blockaderunner]

Well, I KNOW we never landed on the moon 6 times flawlessly 1969 - 1972. The lies keep rollin on...

[@VectorOfKnowledge]

The moon landings are verified by literally all the evidence.

[@blockaderunner]

@@VectorOfKnowledge uh evidence by whom? They trashcanned all the tech and telemetry data. Not so with the steam engine, iron works, crucible steel, the loom which progressed western civilization in the 19th century. I could go on...

[@Experterrors]

blockaderunner you’re a I knew one of the men who landed on the moon and dozens of the scientists involved. Their work and intelligence and dedication were amazing and deserve recognition and respect, not uninformed conspiracy theories.

[@VectorOfKnowledge]

@@blockaderunner Not only did they NOT "washcan all the tech and telemetry data", most of it actually survives. So yeah, you're either a beyond-gross liar or you have in incredibly toxic mix of ignorance and confidence. Maybe try going to NASA's free to use website and download the numerous technical documents and reports pertaining to the Apollo missions. Or don't, if you prefer to embarrass yourself whenever someone exposes your ignorance.

[@VectorOfKnowledge]

@@blockaderunner I guess you think that the Soviets were "tricked" when they affirmed the authenticity of Apollo but that you've "cracked it" because you read some corrupt radio talk show host's opinions.