THE BIG SUCK THEORY
Alexander Abian
The BIG SUCK THEORY is much more rational, realistic and convincing than
the BIG BANG theory which is totally irrational, unrealistic and incredulous.
I assume that there was a primeval, primordial (quite a huge amount)
of Cosmic mass Mo.
BIG SUCK THEORY
In the beginning there were (and still there are) two adversaries:
the VOID OF SPACE and the PRIMEVAL (concentrated) COSMIC MASS Mo.
Space, in order to disencumber itself from the concentrated
presence of an intruding adversary tended (and still tends) to dilute
and dissolve the Primeval Concentrated Mass by disintegrating it via
sucking the Primeval Concentrated mass into the void of the Space.
As a result of this sucking out process which I call the BIG SUCK
(contrary to the currently held views of Big Bang) formidable amounts of
friction was and still are being created giving rise to immense heat
and temperatures, all kinds of radiations, fissions and fusions, cata-
clysmic explosions - tearing apart the original Primeval Mass into
all kinds of parts and particles fulminating them into the void of Space
creating the UNIVERSE, i.e., the COSMOS. The process of Space's attempt
to dilute Masses continues causing the expansion of the Universe.
Naturally, there is a reaction on the part of The Masses which tend
to prevent their dissipation and tend to maintain their status quo by
giving rise to Gravitational, electromagnetic and perhaps some other forces.
The eternal battle between the tendency of diluting the masses into the
void of the space and the resistance of the masses will continue forever or
until T becomes equal to Mo (the primeaval mass of the Cosmos which
may never be achieved, since Mo is a limiting case) in the formula T = A m^2
of the Equivalenve of Time and Mass.
I would like to see posted a single rational argument which will not be in
favor of the BIG SUCK Theory versus the BIG BANG Theory!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABIAN TIME-MASS EQUIVALENCE FORMULA T = A m^2 in Abian units
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS
ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
Alexander Abian
As a criticism to my BIG SUCK THEORY where at the outset I assumed
that a primeval mass Mo existed, Mr KenLiu <K...@LISTEFF.COM>, who praises
the Big Bang Theory and asserts its superiority to my BIG SUCK theory asks:
> where does this Mo mass come from ?
Abian answers:
It comes from the same place that the primeval atom in the Big Bang Theory
comes which I do not know but perhaps the believers of the Big Bang Theory
may know - ask them!
Mr. Ken Liu continues
>
> BIG SUCK THEORY
>
> In the beginning there were (and still there are) two adversaries:
>the VOID OF the SPACE and the PRIMEVAL (concentrated) COSMIC MASS Ho.
> Space tries to dilute the intruding mass and mass tries to resists
>being diluted, etc., etc
<snip>
Daniel R. Reitman
On 8 Mar 1998 21:19:05 GMT, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) wrote:
> The BIG SUCK THEORY is much more rational, realistic and convincing than
>the BIG BANG theory which is totally irrational, unrealistic and incredulous.
>. . . .
"Nature abhors a vacuum."
Sorry. There is no outside for the primeval matter to be sucked into.
Instead, space itself expanded, carrying matter and energy from the
singularity with it.
The Big Bang theory predicts an initial singularity, or at least a
quantum curve very near to the initial singularity. Mr. Abian's
conjecture predicts a large non-singular start. Can Mr. Abian propose
an experiment or observation that will back his conjecture?
Dan, ad nauseam
Hey, Fred! We've got another one who doesn't know Fermat's Last
Theorem has been proven!
Dan, ad nauseam
V.Petrov
Daniel R. Reitman wrote:
(see prev.msg)
> The Big Bang theory predicts an initial singularity, or at least a
> quantum curve very near to the initial singularity. Mr. Abian's
> conjecture predicts a large non-singular start. Can Mr. Abian propose
> an experiment or observation that will back his conjecture?
>
Would be nice to see that experiment BUT also would be nice to
see an experiment which can prove The Big Bang theory.
Alexander Abian
In article <3503766e...@news.teleport.com>,
Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On 8 Mar 1998 21:19:05 GMT, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) wrote:
>
>> The BIG SUCK THEORY is much more rational, realistic and convincing than
>> the BIG BANG theory.....
Mr. Reitman states:
>
>
>The Big Bang theory predicts an initial singularity, or at least a
>quantum curve very near to the initial singularity. Mr. Abian's
>conjecture predicts a large non-singular start. Can Mr. Abian propose
>an experiment or observation that will back his conjecture?
>
Abian answers:
My observation is the existing and expanding universe with planets made
of so to speak the same "earth to earth and ashes to ashes".
I think it is more realistic to assume that Mo existed rather than
believing in the existence of an "initial singularity" and stating
that the "BIg Bang" predicted it. The converse is more honest,
i.e., assuming the existence of a primeval atom created the tale
of the Big Bang.
At least I admit that I DO NO KNOW where the primeval mass Mo came
from. That is the mystery of all mysteries and perhaps will remain
a mystery forever. I admit that I do not know, repeat, do not know
where the primeval mass came from or how it was created. But I know
for sure that the followers of the Big Bang theory do not know either
where their primeval atom (the initial singularity) came from or
how it was created. I would like to see at least one "believer" in
the Big Bang theory to admit that!
I start with the assumption that there was Mo and the space tried
and still tries to dilute Mo. This is how planets were created and
gravitational and other forces were generated to resists the dilution.
But the Universe is still expanding sucked ferociously by the vacuum
of the void oft he space!.
Any objections to my initial assumption of the Big Suck theory can be
levied to the initial assumption of the Big Bang theory.
Unfortunately, very unfortunately, very very unfortunately it seems
that the origins of the primeval mass Mo may remain a mystery, a
mystery forever!!!
ME
<snip>.
> I would like to see posted a single rational argument which will not
be in
> favor of the BIG SUCK Theory versus the BIG BANG Theory!
Ok, let's suppose the big suck theory is more correct. Now there is the
ever important questions :
1.Does space-time still exist in this universe of the BS(big suck)
2. Provided that 1 is true when did time come into being, or if it didn't
then what happened before the big suck.
Since time came into being with the big bang as a result of the quantum
fluctuations in the primeval "soup" there is no such problem with the beg
bang theory. With BS there has to be an first event and before that an even
further first event continuing to the creation of time or to the closed
loop of the universe in wich the universe will be filled with the Matter
(Mo) and the suction will have to be reversed in order of this theory to
work. In that case there would have to be a reason for this to happen and
that would set this whole
argument into place again.
Joshua Hewitt
V.Petrov wrote:
> Would be nice to see that experiment BUT also would be nice to
> see an experiment which can prove The Big Bang theory.
The big bang theory already has 3 main bits of observational evidence. It has
made predictions before some of the tests were carried out, predictions which
turned out to be true.
--
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) Joshua Hewitt; jhewitt[at]geocities.com :-)
:-) Room 1109A, Astrophysics Group, Blackett Laboratory :-)
:-) Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BZ, UK :-)
:-) Telephone: IC [+44 (0)171 59] 47907 / 47693 :-)
:-) http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6253/index.html :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Billy Newsom
Alexander Abian wrote:
> Space, in order to disencumber itself from the concentrated
> presence of an intruding adversary tended (and still tends) to dilute
> and dissolve the Primeval Concentrated Mass by disintegrating it via
> sucking the Primeval Concentrated mass into the void of the Space.
> As a result of this sucking out process which I call the BIG SUCK
The BS theory you presented doesn't mention gravity, which tends to
counteract sucking. As for sucking itself, it seems to me like a
question of "do high pressure areas get drawn to low pressure areas, or
do high pressure areas explode into low pressure areas?"
An explosion, say from a bomb, happens so fast, that we don't talk about
the high pressure gas "flowing" to low pressure areas. We say it
expands rapidly, because it happens at the speed of sound or
thereabouts. Your idea sounds more like the "Big Flow" instead of
sucking. Gases and matter flowing instead of exploding. The mechanisms
are pretty similar, the difference being only the event which initiates
the flow or explosion. And, IMHO, the speed at which it happens, a
difference in semantics only.
Another reason to rename it the Big Flow -- what do gases do? They
expand to fill their container as they flow from a region of high
pressure to a region of low pressure. They don't get sucked, except
through a small opening, e.g. a straw. Would anyone like to invent a
universal straw for the BIG SUCK? Okay, I'll be first -- let's draw
straws.
Billy
V.Petrov
Joshua Hewitt wrote:
> The big bang theory already has 3 main bits of observational evidence. It has
> made predictions before some of the tests were carried out, predictions which
> turned out to be true.
Really? :o)
Could you please describe me some of the predictions and
the EVIDENCE that the B-B theory is true and there IS NO NEED
to discuss it's validity?
Joseph Zorzin
Why not just open up any college level textbook on astronomy. This is
like asking in a math newsgroup a proof that 2 + 2 = 4.
Ranting against the big bang theory, is about as intelligent as
Creationism. Which is not to say there aren't problems with it, but
expecting people to start at the beginning and go over the whole thing
with you because you have some bizzare quack theory is asking too much.
Do some homework on this issue, then come back and ask a real question.
"The universe sucks, then it dies."
Adrian Cable
> I would like to see posted a single rational argument which will not be in
> favor of the BIG SUCK Theory versus the BIG BANG Theory!
It is not our job to justify your theories for you - it is yours. If you
cannot provide a piece of _evidence_ that supports your theory rather
than the standard accepted Big Bang theory, then your theory is
worthless and you must accept it as such.
Thanks, cheers,
Adrian Cable.
V.Petrov
Joseph Zorzin wrote:
(see prev.msg)
> Do some homework on this issue, then come back and ask a real question.
Joseph, i'm not in the status of doing 'homeworks'.
And if i ask something i guess this is NOT simple even for a really
educated people who don't use childish words like yours (see below).
Alexander Abian
I received 5 e-mails relentlessly asking me "Where the primeval mass
Mo that I have assumed to exist (in my BIG SUCK theory) came from"
My immediate answer was and is "from the same place that the initial
singularity (the primeval atom) of the BIG BANG theory came" Ask
the believers of the Big Bang Theory and let me know. Supposedly they
do know the place.
But my own honest answer is:
I have already replied that I DO NOT KNOW where Mo came from .
I assumed its existence and that the creation of Mo , I think will
remain the mystery of all mysteries.
I am awaiting to read the replies of the believers of the Big Bang theory
as to "where the primeval atom of Big Bang theory came from"
I reiterate that:
The BIG SUCK THEORY is much more rational, realistic and
convincing than the BIG BANG theory.....
I do not know of any event that cannot be better explained by the
BIG BANG theory than by the BIG SUCK theory. Name me one !! I do not
know any.
Kurtz
Mr. Abian: U DA MAN
I have accepted THE BIG SUCK THEORY.
What a refreshing point of view!!!!!!
U go boy.
John Ladasky
In article <6dv209$am$1...@news.iastate.edu>,
Alexander Abian <ab...@iastate.edu> wrote:
> The BIG SUCK THEORY is much more rational, realistic and convincing than
And is there a more appropriate person on Earth to introduce a
BIG SUCK theory than our own Alexander Abian? With this post, has he
graduated from crackpot to troll?
Has this guy ever won a Kook of the Month award?
> I assume that there was a primeval, primordial (quite a huge amount)
> of Cosmic mass Mo.
>
> BIG SUCK THEORY
>
> In the beginning there were (and still there are) two adversaries:
>the VOID OF SPACE and the PRIMEVAL (concentrated) COSMIC MASS Mo.
> Space, in order to disencumber itself from the concentrated
>presence of an intruding adversary tended (and still tends) to dilute
>and dissolve the Primeval Concentrated Mass by disintegrating it via
>sucking the Primeval Concentrated mass into the void of the Space.
>As a result of this sucking out process which I call the BIG SUCK
>(contrary to the currently held views of Big Bang) formidable amounts of
>friction was and still are being created giving rise to immense heat
>and temperatures, all kinds of radiations, fissions and fusions, cata-
>clysmic explosions - tearing apart the original Primeval Mass into
>all kinds of parts and particles fulminating them into the void of Space
>creating the UNIVERSE, i.e., the COSMOS. The process of Space's attempt
>to dilute Masses continues causing the expansion of the Universe.
> Naturally, there is a reaction on the part of The Masses which tend
>to prevent their dissipation and tend to maintain their status quo by
>giving rise to Gravitational, electromagnetic and perhaps some other forces.
> The eternal battle between the tendency of diluting the masses into the
>void of the space and the resistance of the masses will continue forever or
>until T becomes equal to Mo (the primeaval mass of the Cosmos which
>may never be achieved, since Mo is a limiting case) in the formula T = A m^2
>of the Equivalenve of Time and Mass.
> I would like to see posted a single rational argument which will not be in
>favor of the BIG SUCK Theory versus the BIG BANG Theory!
>--
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ABIAN TIME-MASS EQUIVALENCE FORMULA T = A m^2 in Abian units
> ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS
> ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
> TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
>
>
--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw. - John Ladasky
Alexander Abian
I received 5 e-mails relentlessly asking me "Where the primeval mass
Mo that I have assumed to exist (in my BIG SUCK theory) came from"
My immediate answer was and is "from the same place that the initial
singularity (the primeval atom) of the BIG BANG theory came" Ask
the believers of the Big Bang Theory and let me know. Supposedly they
do know the place.
But my own honest answer is:
I have already replied that I DO NOT KNOW where Mo came from .
I assumed its existence and that the creation of Mo , I think will
remain the mystery of all mysteries.
I am awaiting to read the replies of the believers of the Big Bang
theory
as to "where the primeval atom of Big Bang theory came from"
I reiterate that:
The BIG SUCK THEORY is much more rational, realistic and
convincing than the BIG BANG theory.....
I do not know of any event that cannot be much better explained by the
BIG SUCK theory than by the BIG BANG theory. Name me one !! I do not
know any.
Annie Simard
Help, my knowledge of computer sciences is somewhat limited, but i'd
like to know what is a kill file exactly and how to include ARCHIMEDES
PLUTONIUM and ALEXANDER ABIAN in mine.
Thanks
Drew Gilmore
V.Petrov (sobo...@online.ru) wrote:
> Joshua Hewitt wrote:
> > The big bang theory already has 3 main bits of observational evidence. It has
> > made predictions before some of the tests were carried out, predictions which
> > turned out to be true.
> Really? :o)
> Could you please describe me some of the predictions and
> the EVIDENCE that the B-B theory is true and there IS NO NEED
> to discuss it's validity?
OK, for one, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, where we see the
border at which the Universe became optically thin: does the Big Suck
theory address where this comes from, if not the Big Bang?
--
Drew Gilmore Morehead Planetarium
http://www.unc.edu/~drewg http://www.unc.edu/depts/mhplanet
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in
shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of
technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was
he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
into it in the first place."
-Douglas Adams
Dan Evens
How ironic that Abian should self-title his theory.
Dan Evens
Mark Gingrich
Alexander Abian (ab...@iastate.edu) proclaimed:
> The BIG SUCK THEORY is much more rational, realistic and convincing ...
I'm confused, Prof. Abian. Are you referring here to *your* Big Suck
Theory or Kenneth Starr's?
--
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mark Gingrich gri...@rahul.net San Leandro, California
Alexander Abian
In article <6e1q8h$gu2$1...@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu>,
Drew Gilmore <dr...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>V.Petrov (sobo...@online.ru) wrote:
<snip>
>> Could you please describe me some of the predictions and
>> the EVIDENCE that the B-B theory is true and there IS NO NEED
>> to discuss it's validity?
>
Drew Gilmore replies:
>OK, for one, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, where we see the
>border at which the Universe became optically thin: does the Big Suck
>theory address where this comes from, if not the Big Bang?
>
Abian answers:
I dismiss respectfully the statement "where we see the border at which
the universe became optically thin" I have heard that before and it
is meaningless surrealistiv virtual reality kind of statement -
and tells practically nothing.
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is precisely another
indication of the masses being diluted, torn apart, pulverized and
atomized. Even the electrons are pulled out of the atoms and sucked out by the
ferociously sucking force of the void of space. The space's
adversity and nontolereace of the presence of the intruding mass is
infinitely greater than people's outrage and nontolerance for
the intrusion of adverse ideas to their own - they try to tear
apart adverse arguments and their proponents just as the space tries
to tear apart the mass by expanding the universe and preventing the
concentration of an intruding adversary.
Thus, the BIG SUCK gives a much more rational and realistic
explanation of the fact that even the electrons are being sucked
out to form Cosmic microwave Background Radiation. So, here is an
Example of the evidence that you were requesting. Does Big Bang
give you a better explanation.
Incidentally, to relentless questioning me of "where did Mo come from"
what is your answer "where did the primeval atom came from according to
the Big Bang theory? where from?
Alexander Abian
In article <3503E344...@motherboards.org>,
Billy Newsom <webm...@motherboards.org> wrote:
>Alexander Abian wrote:
>> Space, in order to disencumber itself from the concentrated
>> presence of an intruding adversary tended (and still tends) to dilute
>> and dissolve the Primeval Concentrated Mass by disintegrating it by
>> sucking the Primeval Concentrated mass into the void of the Space.
>> As a result of this sucking out process which I call the BIG SUCK
>>
Billy Newsom says:
>The BS theory you presented doesn't mention gravity, which tends to
>counteract sucking.
Abian answers:
Dear Billy,
Almost in every occasion in my posting about my BIG SUCK theory,
(e.g. in my recent 3-8-98 posting) I have repeatedly stated:
" Naturally, there is a reaction on the part of The Masses which tend
to prevent their dissipation and tend to maintain their status quo by
giving rise to Gravitational, electromagnetic and perhaps some other
mass actracting forces".
In fact, the above is one of my main argument for the existence of
the gravity, electric, magnetic and other mass attracting forces.
Joshua Hewitt
V.Petrov wrote:
> Joshua Hewitt wrote:
> > The big bang theory already has 3 main bits of observational evidence. It has
> > made predictions before some of the tests were carried out, predictions which
> > turned out to be true.
>
> Really? :o)
> the EVIDENCE that the B-B theory is true and there IS NO NEED
> to discuss it's validity?
The cosmic microwave background was predicted before it was discovered.
Predictions on element abundancies were also confirmed _after_ the theory. The
cosmic microwave background anisotropies were predicted before COBE. Other
small-angle anisotropies are predicted and we await confirmation when the Plank
surveyor goes up.
If we add the fact that GR predicts a non steady-state universe unless you tweak
the cosmological constant tosuit your needs then we can say that the Big Bang
model has quite a firm footing. Much more so than any other models suggested in
the past by astronomers. All the "new theories" I have seen up to now in these
newsgroups are garbled versions of models proposed in the past by serious
scientists, who abandoned them when evidence showed them to be wrong, as any
good scientist should.
Joshua Hewitt
Me to. It might stop the temptation of answering them. Add a few more to that
list as well (Gerry Grushow immediately springs to mind).
Michael Richmann
Annie Simard <kla...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>Help, my knowledge of computer sciences is somewhat limited, but i'd
>like to know what is a kill file exactly and how to include ARCHIMEDES
>PLUTONIUM and ALEXANDER ABIAN in mine.
You'll have to tell us what newsreader you're using first...
--
Mike
My opinions, not Argonne's...
Jedidiah Whitten
Michael Richmann (rich...@cmt.anl.gov) wrote:
: Annie Simard <kla...@videotron.ca> wrote:
: >Help, my knowledge of computer sciences is somewhat limited, but i'd
: >like to know what is a kill file exactly and how to include ARCHIMEDES
: >PLUTONIUM and ALEXANDER ABIAN in mine.
:
: You'll have to tell us what newsreader you're using first...
Apparently she's using Netscape 4.04 for Windows 95.
--
Jedidiah Whitten (jswh...@ucdavis.edu)
+------------------------------------------+
| University of California, Davis |
| http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~whitten |
| http://wwp.mirabilis.com/6569964 |
+------------------------------------------+
Michael Richmann
ez04...@catbert.ucdavis.edu (Jedidiah Whitten) wrote:
>Michael Richmann (rich...@cmt.anl.gov) wrote:
>: Annie Simard <kla...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>: >Help, my knowledge of computer sciences is somewhat limited, but i'd
>: >like to know what is a kill file exactly and how to include ARCHIMEDES
>: >PLUTONIUM and ALEXANDER ABIAN in mine.
>:
>: You'll have to tell us what newsreader you're using first...
>
>Apparently she's using Netscape 4.04 for Windows 95.
Heh. Unless Netscrape has added killfile capability since version
3.0, she's hosed. Time to grab ahold of a newsreader that supports
it like Agent or NewsXpress...
Todd P. Whitesel
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> I would like to see posted a single rational argument which will not be in
>favor of the BIG SUCK Theory versus the BIG BANG Theory!
Big Bang has plenty of successful numerical predictions under its belt.
Does Big Suck?
Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ ugcs.caltech.edu
Todd P. Whitesel
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>a mystery forever. I admit that I do not know, repeat, do not know
>where the primeval mass came from or how it was created. But I know
>for sure that the followers of the Big Bang theory do not know either
>where their primeval atom (the initial singularity) came from or
>how it was created. I would like to see at least one "believer" in
>the Big Bang theory to admit that!
Huh? I have never heard of Big Bang proponents claiming to know where
the initial singularity came from. Just plenty of conjecture, for instance
that our universe might be the inside of a black hole in some other universe.
Everyone knows there is no evidence to support that particular idea, because
it has yet to make any testable predictions. But it is fun to think about.
James Kibo Parry
In five science groups, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I think it is more realistic to assume that Mo existed rather than
> believing in the existence of an "initial singularity" and stating
> that the "BIg Bang" predicted it. The converse is more honest,
> i.e., assuming the existence of a primeval atom created the tale
> of the Big Bang.
But what was the atom's name?
I don't mean what KIND of atom (we all know that it was Abianiumium.)
What was its NAME?
Also, what would it taste like?
> At least I admit that I DO NO KNOW where the primeval mass Mo came
> from. That is the mystery of all mysteries and perhaps will remain
> a mystery forever. I admit that I do not know, repeat, do not know
> where the primeval mass came from or how it was created. But I know
> for sure that the followers of the Big Bang theory do not know either
> where their primeval atom (the initial singularity) came from or
> how it was created. I would like to see at least one "believer" in
> the Big Bang theory to admit that!
Dear Dr. Abian,
I believe in the Big Bang, and I admit that you do not know where the
primeval atom came from or how it was created.
However, although I do not know how it was created, I know where it came from.
K-Mart. Someone put it into a K-Mart shopping cart but while taking the
cart through the wormhole, they collided with a virtron node, which looked
like a Long John Silver's hush puppy, and the atom, which looked like a
used wad of watermelon Bubblicious, became sentient and then exploded.
And then Janeway's arm got really long and ripply and she started talking
backwards until they all did nothing, on the dolphin's recommendation.
> I start with the assumption that there was Mo and the space tried
> and still tries to dilute Mo.
And Curly tries to poke Mo in the eyes while Larry accidentally wallpapers
Mo to the wall, ruining the big society dinner party for everyone.
> This is how planets were created and gravitational and other forces were
> generated to resists the dilution.
The Universe must be filled with Dr Bronner's soap to prevent Essene pregancies!
> But the Universe is still expanding sucked ferociously by the vacuum
> of the void oft he space!.
I wouldn't say the Universe is ferociously sucking. It's more enjoyable,
especially in the erogispheres of rotating black holes.
> Any objections to my initial assumption of the Big Suck theory can be
> levied to the initial assumption of the Big Bang theory.
STEP 1.) Scientists make up a theory.
STEP 2.) Alexander Abian makes up the opposite theory.
STEP 3.) Because Abian's theory is opposite of the other one, the other
one is proved wrong.
STEP 4.) Because the other one is proved wrong, Abian's theory is proved right.
STEP 5.) Abian must take a drink whenever anyone differs, and instead
of "three" and "seven" he must say "zow" and "schwing" or else
slam a shot of vodka Jell-O.
> Unfortunately, very unfortunately, very very unfortunately it seems
> that the origins of the primeval mass Mo may remain a mystery, a
> mystery forever!!!
MO MASSY, MO MASSY, MO MASSY!!!
Those two words have ensured that nobody will ever see this post.
-- K.
To make REALLY sure, let me just say this:
"Alien 5, A Production Of The WB Network".
P.S. (Right now, Roy Scheider is trying to sell me insurance.)
William Clifford
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) wrote:
> The BIG SUCK THEORY is much more rational, realistic and convincing than
>the BIG BANG theory which is totally irrational, unrealistic and incredulous.
> I assume that there was a primeval, primordial (quite a huge amount)
> of Cosmic mass Mo.
> BIG SUCK THEORY
> In the beginning there were (and still there are) two adversaries:
>the VOID OF SPACE and the PRIMEVAL (concentrated) COSMIC MASS Mo.
> Space, in order to disencumber itself from the concentrated
>presence of an intruding adversary tended (and still tends) to dilute
>and dissolve the Primeval Concentrated Mass by disintegrating it via
>sucking the Primeval Concentrated mass into the void of the Space.
>As a result of this sucking out process which I call the BIG SUCK
>(contrary to the currently held views of Big Bang) formidable amounts of
>friction was and still are being created giving rise to immense heat
>and temperatures, all kinds of radiations, fissions and fusions, cata-
>clysmic explosions - tearing apart the original Primeval Mass into
>all kinds of parts and particles fulminating them into the void of Space
>creating the UNIVERSE, i.e., the COSMOS. The process of Space's attempt
>to dilute Masses continues causing the expansion of the Universe.
> Naturally, there is a reaction on the part of The Masses which tend
>to prevent their dissipation and tend to maintain their status quo by
>giving rise to Gravitational, electromagnetic and perhaps some other forces.
> The eternal battle between the tendency of diluting the masses into the
>void of the space and the resistance of the masses will continue forever or
>until T becomes equal to Mo (the primeaval mass of the Cosmos which
>may never be achieved, since Mo is a limiting case) in the formula T = A m^2
>of the Equivalenve of Time and Mass.
> I would like to see posted a single rational argument which will not be in
>favor of the BIG SUCK Theory versus the BIG BANG Theory!
>--
"Uhh... shut up Beavis."
William Clifford
Joseph Zorzin
Todd P. Whitesel wrote:
>
> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
> >a mystery forever. I admit that I do not know, repeat, do not know
> >where the primeval mass came from or how it was created. But I know
> >for sure that the followers of the Big Bang theory do not know either
> >where their primeval atom (the initial singularity) came from or
> >how it was created. I would like to see at least one "believer" in
> >the Big Bang theory to admit that!
>
> the initial singularity came from. Just plenty of conjecture, for instance
> that our universe might be the inside of a black hole in some other universe.
> Everyone knows there is no evidence to support that particular idea, because
> it has yet to make any testable predictions. But it is fun to think about.
>
Why does it have to come from anywhere? Just look at it philosophically,
it was a thought it Budda's mind. <G>
And if he blinks, it will all dissapear.
Drew Gilmore
Alexander Abian (ab...@iastate.edu) wrote:
> In article <6e1q8h$gu2$1...@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu>,
> Drew Gilmore <dr...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> >V.Petrov (sobo...@online.ru) wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Could you please describe me some of the predictions and
> >> the EVIDENCE that the B-B theory is true and there IS NO NEED
> >> to discuss it's validity?
> >
> Drew Gilmore replies:
> >OK, for one, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, where we see the
> >border at which the Universe became optically thin: does the Big Suck
> >theory address where this comes from, if not the Big Bang?
> >
> Abian answers:
> I dismiss respectfully the statement "where we see the border at which
> the universe became optically thin" I have heard that before and it
> is meaningless surrealistiv virtual reality kind of statement -
> and tells practically nothing.
What that phrase *means* is that there is some point at which the universe
is diffuse enough that photons can manage to get through all the densely
packed mass. But I'm sure you've heard that explanation anyway, you just
personally don't like it and thus call it meaningless.
> The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is precisely another
> indication of the masses being diluted, torn apart, pulverized and
> atomized. Even the electrons are pulled out of the atoms and sucked out by the
> ferociously sucking force of the void of space. The space's
> adversity and nontolereace of the presence of the intruding mass is
> infinitely greater than people's outrage and nontolerance for
> the intrusion of adverse ideas to their own - they try to tear
> apart adverse arguments and their proponents just as the space tries
> to tear apart the mass by expanding the universe and preventing the
> concentration of an intruding adversary.
If the suck is infinitely greater than something, then why isn't the Earth
torn apart into its component particles? I bet you've been told a MILLION
times now, never use hyperbole! (in other words, keep your paranoia and
your science in separate paragraphs: people will believe both more
readily that way.)
> Thus, the BIG SUCK gives a much more rational and realistic
> explanation of the fact that even the electrons are being sucked
> out to form Cosmic microwave Background Radiation. So, here is an
> Example of the evidence that you were requesting. Does Big Bang
> give you a better explanation.
Well, lessee. About that apparent even 'wall' that makes up the
background radiation: is that where everything is sucking to, or is it
just where the sucking is the strongest? How does your suck explain the
phenomenon of this even shell of 2.7K thermal radiation?
drew
Ian Walker
the big suck does not work. it does not define an inertial frame. only the
big circling suck (or spiralling suck) can define of its own an inertial
frame - absolut & compleat ... this and ONLY this can define and provendor
the isotropy of inertia and thus the accelerated existence of
Billy Newsom wrote in message <3503E344...@motherboards.org>...
>Alexander Abian wrote:
>> Space, in order to disencumber itself from the concentrated
>> presence of an intruding adversary tended (and still tends) to dilute
>> and dissolve the Primeval Concentrated Mass by disintegrating it via
>> sucking the Primeval Concentrated mass into the void of the Space.
>> As a result of this sucking out process which I call the BIG SUCK
>
>question of "do high pressure areas get drawn to low pressure areas, or
>do high pressure areas explode into low pressure areas?"
>
>An explosion, say from a bomb, happens so fast, that we don't talk about
>the high pressure gas "flowing" to low pressure areas. We say it
>expands rapidly, because it happens at the speed of sound or
>thereabouts. Your idea sounds more like the "Big Flow" instead of
>sucking. Gases and matter flowing instead of exploding. The mechanisms
>are pretty similar, the difference being only the event which initiates
>the flow or explosion. And, IMHO, the speed at which it happens, a
>difference in semantics only.
>
>Another reason to rename it the Big Flow -- what do gases do? They
>expand to fill their container as they flow from a region of high
>pressure to a region of low pressure. They don't get sucked, except
>through a small opening, e.g. a straw. Would anyone like to invent a
>universal straw for the BIG SUCK? Okay, I'll be first -- let's draw
>straws.
>
>Billy
Alexander Abian
Cc:
In article <35058E74...@geocities.com>,
Joshua Hewitt <jhe...@geocities.com> wrote:
>V.Petrov wrote:
>> Joshua Hewitt wrote:
>> > The big bang theory already has 3 main bits of observational evidence. It has
>> > made predictions before some of the tests were carried out, predictions which
>> > turned out to be true.
>>
>> Really? :o)
>> Could you please describe me some of the predictions and
>> the EVIDENCE that the B-B theory is true and there IS NO NEED
>> to discuss it's validity?
>
>The cosmic microwave background was predicted before it was discovered.
>Predictions on element abundances were also confirmed _after_ the theory. The
>cosmic microwave background anisotropies were predicted before COBE. Other
>small-angle anisotropies are predicted and we await confirmation when the Plank
Abian comments:
I can give any explanation of a consequence of the Big Bang theory
as a consequence of the Big Suck theory and in a much more
convincing way. I already gave the explanation of the cosmic
microwave background event.
The "predictability" of a Theory should not be considered as an
essential item for the validity of the Theory.
For instance a Theory may claim to predict a statement S (without
necessarily giving a date certain) and suppose the statement S
materializes 100000 years later.
So before 100000 would you say that the Theory did not fulfill
the requirements of predictability ?
Joshua Hewitt
> I can give any explanation of a consequence of the Big Bang theory
> as a consequence of the Big Suck theory and in a much more
> convincing way. I already gave the explanation of the cosmic
> microwave background event.
Youe explanation is worthless. You don't follow anything up. You have to explain
things in more than words and bold statements. If you thought things through
properly and did the maths, you'd find your big suck theory to fail on countless
ocasions. The ripping apart of atoms may produce a background radiation, but is
it 2.7 K, is it a blackbody, does it exhibit the predicted fluctuations?
The bottom line is that before the BB model, no-one knew about nucleosynthesis
or the CMB. It's easy to explain data once you have it (something you are
failing at I might add), but the real test is predicting new things.
> The "predictability" of a Theory should not be considered as an
> essential item for the validity of the Theory.
If it's physics, predictability helps. If it's bolloks, waffle helps.
> For instance a Theory may claim to predict a statement S (without
> necessarily giving a date certain) and suppose the statement S
> materializes 100000 years later.
>
> So before 100000 would you say that the Theory did not fulfill
> the requirements of predictability ?
No, mounting evidence counts towards paradigm shifts. The fact that one
experiment cannot be done, or that one experiment seemingly contradicts theory
do not invalidate it. However, you do need a body of evidence _for_ the theory.
First you asked for evidenceand predictions of the big bang. I gave them to you.
Now you claim evidence and predictiond don't count.
You can lead a donkey to water, but you can't make him drink it.
Don Romero
Joshua Hewitt wrote in message <35058E74...@geocities.com>...
>V.Petrov wrote:
>> Joshua Hewitt wrote:
>> > The big bang theory already has 3 main bits of observational evidence.
It has
>> > made predictions before some of the tests were carried out, predictions
which
>> > turned out to be true.
>>
>> Really? :o)
>> Could you please describe me some of the predictions and
>> the EVIDENCE that the B-B theory is true and there IS NO NEED
>> to discuss it's validity?
>
>The cosmic microwave background was predicted before it was discovered.
Other theories of the "origin" of cosmic background radiation exist.
Alfven, eg.
>Predictions on element abundancies were also confirmed _after_ the theory.
It was my understanding the B-B could be tweeked to agreement with either
hydrogen, helium or lithium production, but not all three together.
>The cosmic microwave background anisotropies were predicted before
>COBE.
Weren't the anisotropies "confirmed" by COBE like 10^2 too small to explain
current large scale galactic anisotropies?
>Other small-angle anisotropies are predicted and we await confirmation when
the Plank surveyor goes up.
>If we add the fact that GR predicts a non steady-state universe unless you
tweak the cosmological constant to suit your needs then we can say that the
Big Bang model has quite a firm footing. Much more so than any other models
suggested in the past by astronomers.
Which sounds more like an opinion that proof by overwhelming evidence.
(Above comments/questions, btw from E. Lerner "The Big Bang Never
Happened". )
d.
Joshua Hewitt
> >The cosmic microwave background was predicted before it was discovered.
>
> Other theories of the "origin" of cosmic background radiation exist.
> Alfven, eg.
Do they explain it's high degree of isotropy, it's black-body profile and it's
fluctuations?
> >Predictions on element abundancies were also confirmed _after_ the theory.
>
> It was my understanding the B-B could be tweeked to agreement with either
> hydrogen, helium or lithium production, but not all three together.
Wrong. They all fit nicely together (within errors due to astration etc) and
constrain the baryonic matter density 0.010<omega-baryon*h^2<0.015).
> >The cosmic microwave background anisotropies were predicted before
> >COBE.
>
> Weren't the anisotropies "confirmed" by COBE like 10^2 too small to explain
> current large scale galactic anisotropies?
Only if you use baryon-only models. The imprint of the Sachs-Wolfe effect on the
CMB detected by COBE is _larger_ than the predicted value if we use the standard
CDM scenario. Hence models have used HDM and HDM+CDM.
The big bang model has many controversies, mostly due to the large errors
inherent in the observations, but that is always the case with frontear science.
It is the best working model of the universe we have at the moment.
Alexander Abian
The fact that predictability of a Theory cannot be tested does not
necessarily invalidate the Theory and so it is is not an essential
criterion of the validity of the Theory.
Suppose a theory states a statement S (without giving a date certain
for its materialization) and after 1000 years S is materialized.
would that be enough of a reason to consider (at present) that the Theory
is invalid and must be rejected ? That would be irrational!
Joshua Hewitt
Alexander Abian wrote:
>
> The fact that predictability of a Theory cannot be tested does not
> necessarily invalidate the Theory and so it is is not an essential
> criterion of the validity of the Theory.
You seem to disagree with 100% of philosophers of science.
> Suppose a theory states a statement S (without giving a date certain
> for its materialization) and after 1000 years S is materialized.
> would that be enough of a reason to consider (at present) that the Theory
> is invalid and must be rejected ? That would be irrational!
I already posted against this, why not follow that thread instead of repeating
it somewhere else? A theory states S1, S2, S3, S4 S5... You'd expect a few S's
to be materialized before taking it seriously. Even superstrings, the most
untested and untestable theory of today, has evidence for it.
Also, the fact that one S invalidades the theory doesn't make the theory
incorrect. Maybe that S was reached with wrong assumptions. It's the weight of
evidence which makes or breaks a theory, not individual tests. Though of course
tests invalidating it carry a lot more weight.
I don't like putting words in peoples mouth but AFAIK, your claim seems to be
"my theory has no proofs for it or against it, therefore it cannot be wrong".
True, but it cannot be useful either.
Alexander Abian
The fact that predictability of a Theory cannot be tested does not
necessarily invalidate the Theory and so it is not an essential
criterion of the validity of the Theory.
Suppose a theory states a statement S (without giving a date certain
for its materialization) and after 1000 years S is materialized.
Would that be enough of a reason to consider (at present) that the Theory
is invalid and must be rejected ? That would be irrational!
Most probably the crucial criterion for the validity of a Theory is its
not leading to a contradiction, i.e., not implying both S and "not S"
Joshua Hewitt
Alexander Abian wrote:
>
> The fact that predictability of a Theory cannot be tested does not
> necessarily invalidate the Theory and so it is not an essential
> criterion of the validity of the Theory.
>
> Suppose a theory states a statement S (without giving a date certain
> for its materialization) and after 1000 years S is materialized.
> Would that be enough of a reason to consider (at present) that the Theory
> is invalid and must be rejected ? That would be irrational!
>
> Most probably the crucial criterion for the validity of a Theory is its
> not leading to a contradiction, i.e., not implying both S and "not S"
What is your game Alex? Post the same misguided drivell again and again in
different places untill I can't be bothered refuting them, thus making them
valid?
r...@pantheon.global
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>The fact that predictability of a Theory cannot be tested does not
>necessarily invalidate the Theory and so it is not an essential
>criterion of the validity of the Theory.
Also, the fact that a theory can be tested for predictibility does not
mean it is true. There are no less than six mechanical models for QM, and
some are mutually exclusive.
Red
--
Pantheon Unarmed Militia
A valid and rational solution to our nations problems
To participate visit this site and reply to the e-mail link
http://members.tripod.com/~PantheonGlobal/
Alexander Abian
So far I have not seen a single example whose occurrence cannot be
explained in a much more convincing way by the BIG SUCK theory than
by the Big Bang theory. I am still waiting to see Just one (and not
more) just one clear cut example without using sophisticated language
and obscure and dubiously vague notions.
My answer to the person who asked how come that the planet Earth is
not being diluted into the void of space? My answerer is that the Planet
Earth continues to be diluted by means of emitting all kinds of
radiations and particles perhaps of a very small magnitude.
The Planet Earth in its present Cosmic state is like a drop of oil
in a jar of water. That drop seems not to be sucked in by the water and
seems not to be diluted. But wait for some 5 years and then come back
and take a look at the jar. That drop of the oil will most certainly be
totally diluted and disintegrated. The Sun is constantly being sucked
into the void of space, it constantly being diluted by emitting all
kinds of radiations.
Naturally there is a reaction also to dilution and in some cases it is
partially and temporary successful. But to deny that the BIG SUCK
THEORY is less convincing than the Big Bang theory is simply not true.
I have already answered about that requirement of PREDICTABILITY which
is an extremely weak factor in establishing the validity of
a Theory. Besides almost all the predictions occur after the fact and
based on the hind sight benefit. Also, a theory most certainly must not
be rejected on the grounds that its predications cannot be tested at
the present time - they may be matetrialized in a very distant future.
The essential requirement of a Theory is its logical consistency
which in practical terms means that an event and its negation must not
be implied by the Theory.
Justin Smith
In article <6eeku5$t1e$1...@news.iastate.edu>, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander
Abian) wrote:
> So far I have not seen a single example whose occurrence cannot be
>explained in a much more convincing way by the BIG SUCK theory than
>by the Big Bang theory. I am still waiting to see Just one (and not
>more) just one clear cut example without using sophisticated language
>and obscure and dubiously vague notions.
Why don't you email professional astronomers instead of posting to Usenet
in hopes of refutations?
(no offense to professional astronomers who post on Usenet.)
-Justin
--
"Politics is for the moment. An equation is for eternity." -- A. Einstein
Todd P. Whitesel
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>Most probably the crucial criterion for the validity of a Theory is its
>not leading to a contradiction, i.e., not implying both S and "not S"
I agree 100% with the above statement.
However the mere lack of contradiction does not a solid theory make!
You can invent plenty of good theories to explain the same data. One may
seem to make more sense than the other, but in the end we always prefer
the simplest explanations consistent with all observable data. This is
consistent with Occam's Razor, which itself makes me wonder why Big Suck
would appeal to anyone. If I read your posts correctly, Big Suck mainly
uses NewAgey metaphysical explanations of why matter "wants" to do things.
Try relating that back to potential energy minimization, okay?
Big Bang, however, relies on plenty of already established theory. Indeed,
Big Bang has a track record of predicting things we didn't even know we
were supposed to look for. Big Suck will need to offer its own explanations
of these observations, and if it can make a few prophecies that turn out to
be correct, a lot of us will suddenly sit up and take notice.
But Mr. Abian, as long as you brush aside the importance of hard evidence
and try to persuade us that the intellectual beauty (which is in the eye
of the beholder!) of your theory is the reason why we should believe in
it, you reduce yourself to a religious zealot.
I (and I believe many others) would be perfectly willing to discuss the
possible implications of your theories if you presented them as no more
than they are: alternatives to the current paradigms worthy of pondering
and mental experimentation. But you don't -- you claim to be bringing us
the WORD OF GOD from high upon the mountain, and we are lowly slaves to
the establishment because we seem to expect you to do actual work to
support your theory. We are merely asking you to do what every other
historically important scientist has done.
Please, learn to apply yourself to respectable science, or find some other
occupation. People like you encourage non-scientific thought among the mass
public (remember the Weekly World News coverage of your Moon proposal?) by
lowering the credibility of scientists everywhere when you make appeals to
the American ideal of standing up to established institutions. The specific
institution involved here has been incredibly successful precisely because
of processes that avoid wasting people's time on distractions such as yours
which (by your own admission) have no observable consequences.
In closing I would like to repeat something that we probably forget to say
here much of the time. I am not and have never intended to say unequivocally
that your Big Suck theory (or your Moon proposal for that matter) is 100%
wrong. What I _am_ saying is that I don't see them winning over established
theories any time soon, and you'll have to do some real work if you want to
change that. But you seem to think that such work is beneath you. Well maybe
that's just a roundabout way of saying that you're afraid to spend your own
time & money, only to find out that (oops!) you _were_ wrong, after all.
Adrian Cable
> So far I have not seen a single example whose occurrence cannot be
> explained in a much more convincing way by the BIG SUCK theory than
> by the Big Bang theory. I am still waiting to see Just one (and not
> more) just one clear cut example without using sophisticated language
> and obscure and dubiously vague notions.
Two things. First of all, why do you keep posting this all the time?
Secondly, you must understand that, if you have a new scientific theory,
it is up to you to put forward something it predicts that is not
accounted for by current theory. It is NOT our job to do the reverse. If
it was, we'd forever be wasting time justifying a theory which works
well for us against dozens of crackpot theories that people constantly
put forward (and I'm not implying here that your theory is a crackpot
one, just that most are, and so, on the grounds of probability, yours
probably is). I hope I have expressed this in language as far from being
obscure and dubiously vague as possible.
Thanks, cheers,
Adrian Cable.
Jack Kessler
President leaves office.
Alexander Abian wrote:
> So far I have not seen a single example whose occurrence cannot be
> explained in a much more convincing way by the BIG SUCK theory than
> by the Big Bang theory. I am still waiting to see Just one (and not
> more) just one clear cut example without using sophisticated language
> and obscure and dubiously vague notions.
>
John Savard
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) wrote:
>The fact that predictability of a Theory cannot be tested does not
>necessarily invalidate the Theory and so it is not an essential
>criterion of the validity of the Theory.
No, but under most circumstances, it would mean that worrying about
the new theory, or considering it, is nothing more than an absolute
waste of time.
John Savard
Joshua Hewitt
Alexander Abian wrote:
>
> So far I have not seen a single example whose occurrence cannot be
> explained in a much more convincing way by the BIG SUCK theory than
> by the Big Bang theory. I am still waiting to see Just one (and not
> more) just one clear cut example without using sophisticated language
> and obscure and dubiously vague notions.
If the sun sucks darkness, how do you explain cometary tails?
Where does all the sucked matter go?
Chaotic Angel
It just is
Troop. Bobby Cat
Chicken Nugget
themayoman
> The BIG SUCK THEORY is much more rational, realistic and convincing than
> the BIG BANG theory which is totally irrational, unrealistic and incredulous.
> I assume that there was a primeval, primordial (quite a huge amount)
> of Cosmic mass Mo.
> BIG SUCK THEORY
> In the beginning there were (and still there are) two adversaries:
> the VOID OF SPACE and the PRIMEVAL (concentrated) COSMIC MASS Mo.
> presence of an intruding adversary tended (and still tends) to dilute
> and dissolve the Primeval Concentrated Mass by disintegrating it via
> sucking the Primeval Concentrated mass into the void of the Space.
> As a result of this sucking out process which I call the BIG SUCK
> friction was and still are being created giving rise to immense heat
> and temperatures, all kinds of radiations, fissions and fusions, cata-
> clysmic explosions - tearing apart the original Primeval Mass into
> all kinds of parts and particles fulminating them into the void of Space
> creating the UNIVERSE, i.e., the COSMOS. The process of Space's attempt
> to dilute Masses continues causing the expansion of the Universe.
> Naturally, there is a reaction on the part of The Masses which tend
> to prevent their dissipation and tend to maintain their status quo by
> giving rise to Gravitational, electromagnetic and perhaps some other forces.
> until T becomes equal to Mo (the primeaval mass of the Cosmos which
> may never be achieved, since Mo is a limiting case) in the formula T = A m^2
> of the Equivalenve of Time and Mass.
> I would like to see posted a single rational argument which will not be in
> favor of the BIG SUCK Theory versus the BIG BANG Theory!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ABIAN TIME-MASS EQUIVALENCE FORMULA T = A m^2 in Abian units
> ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS
> ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
> TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
American Hat
> who else here from andrew?
TheBoxyBear
Bubsuki
Samuel
Randy
The Gamingraven
Stresso Shroomy
Random
Zachary Nagel
JustAnotherMarcus
Ninkjeboi
Feflyy
Riktor Rag
> In five science groups, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > I think it is more realistic to assume that Mo existed rather than
> > believing in the existence of an "initial singularity" and stating
> > that the "BIg Bang" predicted it. The converse is more honest,
> > i.e., assuming the existence of a primeval atom created the tale
> > of the Big Bang.
> But what was the atom's name?
> I don't mean what KIND of atom (we all know that it was Abianiumium.)
> What was its NAME?
> Also, what would it taste like?
> > At least I admit that I DO NO KNOW where the primeval mass Mo came
> > from. That is the mystery of all mysteries and perhaps will remain
> > a mystery forever. I admit that I do not know, repeat, do not know
> > where the primeval mass came from or how it was created. But I know
> > for sure that the followers of the Big Bang theory do not know either
> > where their primeval atom (the initial singularity) came from or
> > how it was created. I would like to see at least one "believer" in
> > the Big Bang theory to admit that!
> Dear Dr. Abian,
> I believe in the Big Bang, and I admit that you do not know where the
> primeval atom came from or how it was created.
> However, although I do not know how it was created, I know where it came from.
> K-Mart. Someone put it into a K-Mart shopping cart but while taking the
> cart through the wormhole, they collided with a virtron node, which looked
> like a Long John Silver's hush puppy, and the atom, which looked like a
> used wad of watermelon Bubblicious, became sentient and then exploded.
> And then Janeway's arm got really long and ripply and she started talking
> backwards until they all did nothing, on the dolphin's recommendation.
> > I start with the assumption that there was Mo and the space tried
> > and still tries to dilute Mo.
> And Curly tries to poke Mo in the eyes while Larry accidentally wallpapers
> Mo to the wall, ruining the big society dinner party for everyone.
> > This is how planets were created and gravitational and other forces were
> > generated to resists the dilution.
> The Universe must be filled with Dr Bronner's soap to prevent Essene pregancies!
> > But the Universe is still expanding sucked ferociously by the vacuum
> > of the void oft he space!.
> I wouldn't say the Universe is ferociously sucking. It's more enjoyable,
> especially in the erogispheres of rotating black holes.
> > Any objections to my initial assumption of the Big Suck theory can be
> > levied to the initial assumption of the Big Bang theory.
> STEP 1.) Scientists make up a theory.
> STEP 2.) Alexander Abian makes up the opposite theory.
> STEP 3.) Because Abian's theory is opposite of the other one, the other
> one is proved wrong.
> STEP 4.) Because the other one is proved wrong, Abian's theory is proved right.
> STEP 5.) Abian must take a drink whenever anyone differs, and instead
> of "three" and "seven" he must say "zow" and "schwing" or else
> slam a shot of vodka Jell-O.
> > Unfortunately, very unfortunately, very very unfortunately it seems
> > that the origins of the primeval mass Mo may remain a mystery, a
> > mystery forever!!!
> MO MASSY, MO MASSY, MO MASSY!!!
> Those two words have ensured that nobody will ever see this post.
> -- K.
> To make REALLY sure, let me just say this:
> "Alien 5, A Production Of The WB Network".
>
> P.S. (Right now, Roy Scheider is trying to sell me insurance.)
MO MASSY!! MO MASSY!! MO MASSY!!
xD
Mayor Chill Productions
Mashed Taters
> When big fuck theory?
I think what we're all dismissing here is the BIG GANGBANG THEORY
Dom S.
Dom S.
> Jesus fucking christ. What the fuck is this thread about?!
Mikko
> Jesus fucking christ. What the fuck is this thread about?!
Mikko
Wyatt Boren
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.
(from: WolframAlpha)
Beyond16bit
gjyuu xvh
> It's really cool that this thread is from the late 1990s, was really neat having Huggbees show it to the internet lmao
mitchr...@gmail.com
> The BIG SUCK THEORY is much more rational, realistic and convincing than
> the BIG BANG theory which is totally irrational, unrealistic and incredulous.
No. Dimension came first then the beginning of time...
Gravity did not create the universe because it would be in the way.
Mitchell Raemsch
Kaden I Franzmann
Keklord 2
Joseph Taylor
> The BIG SUCK THEORY is much more rational, realistic and convincing than
> the BIG BANG theory which is totally irrational, unrealistic and incredulous.
You both SUCK
Hiple
Plazma Dolphin
Aiden Tedeski
Griffin “Jax” Boingoloid
Zulu0791
> bestie idk
aw hell naw
Lodestone gaming
Nolan Sackrison
I'm not gonna lie I think he's onto something
RandomName Last Name
Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground.
The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.
Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black.
Ooh, black and yellow!
Let's shake it up a little.
Barry! Breakfast is ready!
Coming!
Hang on a second.
Hello?
Barry?
Adam?
Can you believe this is happening?
I can't.
I'll pick you up.
Looking sharp.
Use the stairs, Your father paid good money for those.
Sorry. I'm excited.
Here's the graduate.
We're very proud of you, son.
A perfect report card, all B's.
Very proud.
Ma! I got a thing going here.
You got lint on your fuzz.
Ow! That's me!
Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000.
Bye!
Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house!
Hey, Adam.
Hey, Barry.
Is that fuzz gel?
A little. Special day, graduation.
Never thought I'd make it.
Three days grade school, three days high school.
Those were awkward.
Three days college. I'm glad I took a day and hitchhiked around The Hive.
You did come back different.
Hi, Barry. Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good.
Hear about Frankie?
Yeah.
You going to the funeral?
No, I'm not going.
Everybody knows, sting someone, you die.
Don't waste it on a squirrel.
Such a hothead.
I guess he could have just gotten out of the way.
I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day.
That's why we don't need vacations.
Boy, quite a bit of pomp under the circumstances.
Well, Adam, today we are men.
We are!
Bee-men.
Amen!
Hallelujah!
Students, faculty, distinguished bees,
please welcome Dean Buzzwell.
Welcome, New Hive City graduating class of 9:15.
That concludes our ceremonies And begins your career at Honex Industries!
Will we pick our job today?
I heard it's just orientation.
Heads up! Here we go.
Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times.
Wonder what it'll be like?
A little scary.
Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group.
This is it!
Wow.
Wow.
We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life.
Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to The Hive.
Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as... Honey!
That girl was hot.
She's my cousin!
She is?
Yes, we're all cousins.
Right. You're right.
At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence.
These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology.
What do you think he makes?
Not enough.
Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman.
What does that do?
Catches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it.
Saves us millions.
Can anyone work on the Krelman?
Of course. Most bee jobs are small ones.
But bees know that every small job, if it's done well, means a lot.
But choose carefully because you'll stay in the job you pick for the rest of your life.
The same job the rest of your life? I didn't know that.
What's the difference?
You'll be happy to know that bees, as a species, haven't had one day off in 27 million years.
So you'll just work us to death?
We'll sure try.
Wow! That blew my mind!
"What's the difference?"
How can you say that?
One job forever?
That's an insane choice to have to make.
I'm relieved. Now we only have to make one decision in life.
Chris _P_Bacon
> It's really cool that this thread is from the late 1990s, was really neat having Huggbees show it to the internet lmao
mitchr...@gmail.com
Deandre Theofilopoulos
>> ABIAN TIME-MASS EQUIVALENCE FORMULA T = A m^2 in Abian units ALTER
>> EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS ALTER THE
>> SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO CREATE A
>> BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
>
> Dimension came first. Only God was before it.
god. What a shame. You don't undrestand physics and anything.
Kamyar Zolfkhani
> ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS
> ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
> TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)