How To Contradict The Big Bang Theory With Physics
| Science No big bang: a. The improbable statement of belief that all matter that is in existence was always in existence is tantamount to the improbable statement of belief that a God that is in existence was always in existence. b. The impossible statement of belief that matter is capable of spontaneous existence is less than tantamount to the improbable statement of belief that a God that is in existence was always in existence, being that it would defy the 1st law of Thermodynamics: {scientific specific terms} “The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.” {layman terms} Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. c. Presuming the improbable statement of belief that all matter in existence, which simply always existed, happened to be singularly concentrated in one location, is less probable than presuming the improbable statement of belief that all matter in existence, which simply always existed was scattered abroad an infinite vastness without concentrated location. The improbable belief of a singular specific location, as apposed to scattered location, when there is a infinite vast emptiness of equal vacuum would therefore dictate either logic, intellect, effort, and/ or work done (being that gravity could not be part of the equation (see 7g)). d. A uni-mass would defy 2nd law of thermodynamics: Should all the matter of the universe be concentrated in one location of the universe, for the uni-mass to self destruct would dictate a severe entropy in the concentration which would self nullify its existence at all being that nothing could self generate or accumulate into a contradictory form which needs to break down. So for this belief to work in agreement with the laws of physics it would have to either gather or exist in its most base stable concentrated form or it would have to exist in its smeared out form as in 7c. It could never defy entropy to fulfill entropy. It could never gather or simply exist as a “bomb” waiting to explode. e. Should all the matter of the universe actually explode the necessary magnitude of force would be need to be greater than half the nuclear discharge of literally every star in the universe which does exist in order to move the stars (being that stars cannot move because of their omni-directional thrust factor). f. Should any motion have been created by this theoretical colossal force, being that the 1st law of mechanics: inertia being that “an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon an outside force, and an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.” (being that gravity could not be part of the equation (see 7g)) it would dictate that all matter in the universe would still be traveling at that colossal speed (greater than the speed of light) and no planet could be near any proximity of any star. g. Gravity by all measures of scale and theory has a miniscule measure of force in ratio comparison being that its measurement is of force weaker than the weakest magnet of the same proportional measurement comparison. Like magnets the force decreases as the distance between objects increase. Conclusion: therefore by any reason of logic unless you wish to contradict EVERY law of thermodynamics it is 100% impossible for there ever to be a big bang. and don't let me get started on the ramifications of the so called "big bang theory" which defy the laws of physics even worse!!
More big bang adviceThe simple way of my knowledge of understanding this theory which clearly isnt much is that two atoms one possitive and one negative atoms collide with each other at such a speed that it explodes into millions of particles and in theory created earth
 Questions about big bang:
|
|
Tweet this!
