Difference between revisions of "User talk:JimJast"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Useful links
DamianJohn (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Hi Maratrean, The [[Big Bang theory]] is not a theory in scientific sense since it is not verifyable, which is required from all "scientific" theories. It is only a (lame) hypothesis that the universe came about in such way. In my opinion it is just a creationist fairy tale proposing how it could happen if the universse were not eternal (as it most likely is), and if there was a way of creating energy out of nothing. The later thing is necessary for such a "BB universe" to exist, and for several reasons. (i) If there was no universe in its place and it got created "somehow" the energy had to be supplied. (ii) If it already started function as we see it now, it needs constant supply of energy to compensate for constant loss of energy of photons for "dynamical friction" which is a problem for any moving objects in the universe with which it interacts gravitationally. Even photons need this energy delievered, as I described [http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/160.htm it here]. Besides the above paper explains all the observations so that the Big Bang hypothesis is not needed any more. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:39, 16 July 2011 (EDT) | :Hi Maratrean, The [[Big Bang theory]] is not a theory in scientific sense since it is not verifyable, which is required from all "scientific" theories. It is only a (lame) hypothesis that the universe came about in such way. In my opinion it is just a creationist fairy tale proposing how it could happen if the universse were not eternal (as it most likely is), and if there was a way of creating energy out of nothing. The later thing is necessary for such a "BB universe" to exist, and for several reasons. (i) If there was no universe in its place and it got created "somehow" the energy had to be supplied. (ii) If it already started function as we see it now, it needs constant supply of energy to compensate for constant loss of energy of photons for "dynamical friction" which is a problem for any moving objects in the universe with which it interacts gravitationally. Even photons need this energy delievered, as I described [http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/160.htm it here]. Besides the above paper explains all the observations so that the Big Bang hypothesis is not needed any more. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:39, 16 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
::Hi JJ. I hope you fit in here. I suspect your ideas will be welcomed here more than at certain other places. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:45, 17 July 2011 (EDT) | ::Hi JJ. I hope you fit in here. I suspect your ideas will be welcomed here more than at certain other places. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:45, 17 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Your gravitation theory== | ||
| + | Hi JimJast, I've just commented on your theory [[Talk:Gravitation_demystified|here]]. --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 17:13, 9 August 2011 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:13, August 9, 2011
Welcome!
Hello, JimJast, and welcome to Conservapedia!
We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.
At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!
Thanks for reading, JimJast!
Hi Jim Jast, welcome to Conservapedia. Knowing your interests, I would suggest a good article for you to work on would be Big Bang theory. But I'd suggest you edit the Talk page first, to check if other editors are happy with your edits, before making them to the proper article (at least until you get the feel for the site.) If you want to check on anything, good people to talk to would be Conservative or RobSmith, since they are both admins and have been around much longer than me. Maratrean 20:48, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
- Hi Maratrean, The Big Bang theory is not a theory in scientific sense since it is not verifyable, which is required from all "scientific" theories. It is only a (lame) hypothesis that the universe came about in such way. In my opinion it is just a creationist fairy tale proposing how it could happen if the universse were not eternal (as it most likely is), and if there was a way of creating energy out of nothing. The later thing is necessary for such a "BB universe" to exist, and for several reasons. (i) If there was no universe in its place and it got created "somehow" the energy had to be supplied. (ii) If it already started function as we see it now, it needs constant supply of energy to compensate for constant loss of energy of photons for "dynamical friction" which is a problem for any moving objects in the universe with which it interacts gravitationally. Even photons need this energy delievered, as I described it here. Besides the above paper explains all the observations so that the Big Bang hypothesis is not needed any more. JimJast 15:39, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
- Hi JJ. I hope you fit in here. I suspect your ideas will be welcomed here more than at certain other places. --DamianJohn 14:45, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Your gravitation theory
Hi JimJast, I've just commented on your theory here. --MM87 17:13, 9 August 2011 (EDT)