Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"apparently you've not read much about the subject."
Well if you are nothing else you are consistent. Consistently wrong.
The difference is that I teach at a university and I read publications in peer reviewed journals while you are reading, it seems, comic books. Though I have to admit I am shocked you found a web site at a university. There may be hope for you some day.
But did you read it? No where in the entire text is the word "black" much less "black hole."
Try this site from Cornell instead:
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/lec31.htm
Note the statement:
# We can extrapolated back to about ~10-43 seconds after the Big Bang.
* Beyond this the physics is unknown.
That is the fact of the matter. We can not see all the way back to the bang. At ~10-43 seconds our math and physics break down. 1) just because you teach political mudslinging at a university, does not mean you know much about science. if someone who claims to have written a major paper on glaciers does not even know what glacial periods and intercultural period and does not believe that ice retreats during an ice age, there is little chance that these "piers" that reviewed you would know enough about science to understand the science of blowing their own noses.
2) you talk about inconsistency when you claim that know one knows about the first instances and then write that we know about the first minute.
3) Ive given you several links to university, although this is the first one that you give credit to understanding anything.
4) as i said there are different theories, which if you read the post you would know that ppl can only speculate (meaning theorise) the state that prior to the big bang. just because its not in this one does not mean that some one has not theorised that it was a black hole. many ppl have, because its logical to do so. one theory is that the universe is cyclic, meaning that after a time the gravity will pull everything back into another black hole and it will start all over again.
if you cant be bother to pay attention to whats going on, don't bother trying to bull-corn ppl into believing that you have any idea what your talking about.
here's a couple of researchers that have thought along this line.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html now before you make a fool of yourself claiming these are not real scientist, PAUL STEINHARDT is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and on the faculty of both the Departments of Physics and Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University. i have this sneaking suspicion that this guy knows a little bit more about science than you.
since your big on pier review here's one that was accepted by pier review
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C55B5-C29B-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF even your vaulted BBC acknowledges it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1953244.stm
