CMB and Big Bang have been UTTERLY debunked

I never knew the CMB and by extension the big bang were based on such shotty science this is absolutely amazing check this out watch this video all the way through, its very well sourced.

I understand the logic but the rest escapes me.

a reply to: sprockets2000

originally posted by: sprockets2000
I never knew the CMB and by extension the big bang were based on such shotty science

Lots of guesswork involved in, "What happened @ the beginning?"

Theory is a great word. For some reason non-scientists don't get it.

Big Bang my ass. It's a theory to satisfy the persistent questions kids ask. Are you folks reading my reply kids? No? Stop acting like kids then. LOLOLOLOLOL

OBTW, the Scientific Community hates Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Ph.D for a reason. He clearly points out where the people spending your tax dollars ... are being deceptive.

If you had an employee, who told you lies ... would they stay on your payroll? Sooner or later people are going to start asking why we pay NASA employees so much money in their paychecks, when ... clearly ... they have been guilty of deceit by omission. I guess a lot of that has to do with their multi-billion dollar operations that are quite frankly ... of no worth.

I mean who gives a crap about the pretty pictures your space telescopes deliver. How many of you really know that those pictures undergo a crap-ton of editing before they're published?

For all of the billions and billions and billions of tax dollars spent ... what have we really got to show for it?

Dr. Robitaille isn't anywhere near as direct about it as I am. I imagine they'd find a way to kill me if I were walking around in his shoes.

Look him up, he’s a kook. youtu.be...

a reply to: sprockets2000

So all the satellites between the late 80s (which are the examples in that video) and now the latest being This one

Those don’t count? Or are irrelevant?

Because I’m confused, besides war; space exploration and experimentation are the leading factor in most of, if not ALL advancements in technology.

So this guy is saying NASA has spent Billions of dollars on made up stories? To what end, or what purpose?

originally posted by: Dalamax
I understand the logic but the rest escapes me.

a reply to: sprockets2000

Yeah, same for me. I kind of get what he is saying but I have no knowledge of how to properly apply it to stuff like the big bang. I get from this that things were different than they were expected to be which kind of makes things like the big bang theory's basics possibly not correct. The big bang theory is just a hypothesis that a lot of people have accepted as real, there is no way from our position in this galaxy and Univers that we could truly figure out how the Universe was formed...but that does not stop people who believe they are smarter than us to say it is real to make themselves seem more prestigious.

In reality, it does not matter how the universe was formed, and it is impossible for anyone to figure it out at this point. Science is used a lot to suppress others. If a lot of scientists accept something as real, just as when society accepts something as real, it just forms our reality we live in...it does not mean it is actually the whole truth or real. Belief and power control science just as it controls society.

a reply to: sprockets2000

Okay let's say for arguments sake the guy is right about the CMB.

Now explain the expansion of the universe as seen by direct observation. What happens of you reverse the clock?

This guy didn't debunk anything, also I'm looking forward to laughing at his "debunking" of the sensors and data of the James Webb telescope.

The "Big Bang" should never be taken so seriously. Its a concept reverse engineered through computer programs, where when they run it, the model matches what we see.

Problem is, thats shoddy science at best, and shouldnt be called science. Its the same as when a morgue gets a dead body and tries to figure out what caused the injuries. They usually get it close, but not perfect. For example, if someone was beaten with a 2x4, they may think he was hit with a bat. Someone could have died from a stab wound in the gut according to the coroner (robbery they likely speculate), but the victim actually tripped and fell on a shard of glass.

You cant take everything in the galaxy, when we dont even know what is in the galaxy, then claim this idea is correct because you get the same picture when you fast forward the simulation. I can do the exact same "science" in many categories that would match what is observed, but be completely wrong.

The universe is no different. We dont know jack, but NASA pushing this stuff like its settled gets them more money. Things that we know much more about we get wrong regularly. Scientists cant even figure out how to separate time from Gravity, or why they are connected. Those two things are major parts of the human experience, and we do not understand them, but we understand the universe that created them? That doesn't add up.

a reply to: sprockets2000

This isn't really my field, but until someone who can explain things better comes along, here goes:

He's essentially playing buzz word bingo with key words that he can be reasonably sure some people will recognize but not understand, and then playing word soup with them.

He doesn't take into account that cosmologists were able to predict most of what we see before we saw it using standardized models, or that these models can be wound backwards and forwards to tell use what things will be like in the future or what they were like in the past. Which agree with other models that were put together based on other phenomena or observations.

He also talks about "contamination", which is really a page drawn from the electric universe book, and doesn't take into account that the same observations are being made from different positions on the Earth or from satellites above the Earth.

a reply to: TrollMagnet

The difference here is that we can look at other models, such as gravitational models derived from the movement of galaxies, and when we compare them they match up.

I's like comparing a forensic report from a crime scene to a witness statement and finding that one confirms the other.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: TrollMagnet

The difference here is that we can look at other models, such as gravitational models derived from the movement of galaxies, and when we compare them they match up.

I's like comparing a forensic report from a crime scene to a witness statement and finding that one confirms the other.

LOL, thats not right either. That leg you are trying to stand on is 10% complete at best.

a reply to: 00018GE

Look him up, he’s a kook. youtu.be...

Why's that cause "professor dave" and other establishment main stream"professors" say so?

There have been scientific theories that were proven wrong after long periods of time.
Hell Einstein thought the the universe was static, even when his own theory of relativity said it should be expanding. It wasn't until Hubble found that the universe and galaxies were expanding did he change his mind.

Then there's the Steady State Theory which says the universe is expanding but it's density is steady due to matter (stars, planets) constantly created to fill in when old one become unobservable.

Point is that's why they call them theories and not facts, cause it's entirely possible that somebody will find or believe something else is happening or changing and can find evidence to back it up.

a reply to: SeektoUnderstand

Did you not watch his video? He debunks every single satellite that has ever supposedly measured the cmb

You tell me the satellite that measures the CMB at l2? there isnt one if you watched the video you would know that

if its not at l2 it doesnt exist, that seems obvious

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: 00018GE

Look him up, he’s a kook. youtu.be...

Why's that cause "professor dave" and other establishment main stream"professors" say so?

There have been scientific theories that were proven wrong after long periods of time.
Hell Einstein thought the the universe was static, even when his own theory of relativity said it should be expanding. It wasn't until Hubble found that the universe and galaxies were expanding did he change his mind.

Then there's the Steady State Theory which says the universe is expanding but it's density is steady due to matter (stars, planets) constantly created to fill in when old one become unobservable.

Point is that's why they call them theories and not facts, cause it's entirely possible that somebody will find or believe something else is happening or changing and can find evidence to back it up.

I dont get what their going on about, if you watch his presentation its undeniable, there has never been a measurement of the cmb at l2 because it doesnt exist they can only find it near earth seems obvious. Also what he says about them claiming to be able to remove radio freq from galaxies to see the cmb behind them is just lol

I dont see how someone could watch his presentation and not come away thinking okay maybe there is a big bang or a cmb, but there is def ZERO evidence for it. Why not get this right instead of burying your head

I was thinking about UFOS recently and one thing struck me, the Russians with reflect (their satellite to find the cmb) werent trying to find a conclusion, which is why they cautioned the Americans about their findings, that they had to find it at L2 for it to be real. Which was ignored

Maybe they went down a different route of physics in the 80s and we went down this road of big bangs and cmbs which is fake which makes our physics way off. Maybe Russia does have new AirCraft that fly like what we call UFOs and thats why they are getting big balls lately

originally posted by: SeektoUnderstand
a reply to: sprockets2000

So all the satellites between the late 80s (which are the examples in that video) and now the latest being This one

Those don’t count? Or are irrelevant?

Because I’m confused, besides war; space exploration and experimentation are the leading factor in most of, if not ALL advancements in technology.

So this guy is saying NASA has spent Billions of dollars on made up stories? To what end, or what purpose?

Not saying NASA is making anything up, but they are 100% in cahoots with defense contracting industry. Their research and development is equal parts science and military.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I’d agree…. Most R&D is with military and defense in mind; they find the science and positive things by accident lol

Name the satellite you are talking about that he didnt mention in the video that measures the monopol.

DID you watch the video at all, i dont know what you are talking about there are NO OTHER SATS

Please instead of linking to a launch from 2021 name the sat that did it

If you watched the video you would know that only Relect and COBE supposedly measured the monopol nbut they did it near earth even the relect team said hey you HAVE to do this at l2

no satelite has EVER measures the monopol at l2 what they do instead is make anisotropy maps which are garbage so I really dont know what satellites you are talking about