‘The Big Bang’ was coined as a mocking term

Hi Tap,
In today’s article below, Mike Adams editor of Natural News discusses
science, the matrix we live in and how it affects our spiritual being
after death.
I found the Matrix of life, Light and Truth very interesting and think
you may too. After all isn’t that what life is all about, letting your
Light shine in a world of darkness by living the Truth. It’s no
strange thing that Light and Truth are synonymous, Christ tells us in
Joh_8:12 He is the Light of the world and told his disciples,
followers of the Light and Truth; (Mat_5:14) they were too.

Thursday, February 07, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_universe_simulation_intelligent_design.html#ixzz2KEu2wJld

Kind regards,
Gordon.

EXTRACT –

(NaturalNews) There’s a lot of buzz in the news about a new scientific study that statistically supports the idea that our known universe is actually a grand computer simulation. This is mainstream science, and the idea isn’t a whacky as you might first suppose. I’ve actually written about this several times in articles about consciousness and the nature of reality. This news, by the way, also supports the idea of a Creator who brought this universe — and everything in it — into existence by design.

A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.

Here’s what it means in layman’s terms

Here’s the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the “screen resolution” such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.

Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that’s only half a pixel. For example, you can’t draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor — a computer game, a website, even a video — is essentially transposed onto the “lattice” of pixels that exist in your hardware.

Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired “resolution limit” which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.

Now, zoom out to the “real” world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we’re analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?

Not so fast. As it turns out, our “reality” is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays “snaps to” the “resolution” of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a “universe.”

The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_universe_simulation_intelligent_design.html#ixzz2KGQabZnq

COMMENT –


The discovery of the complexity of the universe, caused Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001 was an English astronomer and mathematician) to change from his aetheist to creationist, i.e. realising that ‘intelligent design’ is the only answer that makes any sense.

I’ve just found this on yahoo answers:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427022633AAnf24c

Q: What startling scientific fact cause astronomer Fred Hoyle to abandon atheism?

Here’s what astrophysicist Dr Rodney Holder says on this (in book detailed below):

“The initial phase of the universe (that first fraction of a second from the Big Bang) had to be set up in a very special way in order for stars, galaxies and ultimately life to form. Cosmologist Fred Hoyle did some major work on the nuclear reactions that go on inside stars to form all the chemical elements out of the simplest building block, which is hydrogen. He discovered that there needs to be a very fine balance of the forces in nature in order to make carbon, and then to make oxygen without destroying the carbon. Although he didn’t believe in God, Hoyle said that his work led him to the conclusion that there was a super-intellect behind physics, chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

“…The universe is sitting on a knife-edge as to whether it is going to expand for ever or eventually re-collapse. This is to do with how much total mass-energy there is in the universe. If there is more than a certain critical value, then gravity will pull the universe back and it will re-collapse. If there is less than that critical value, then gravity won’t be sufficient to pull the universe back, and it will expand fore ever.
“Right back at the beginning, the universe needed to be very close to that knife-edge in order for stars, galaxies and planets to form. The mass-energy needed to be what it was to within 1 part in 10/60 (that’s ten with sixty noughts after it). That kind of accuracy would be the same as firing a gun from one end of the universe to the other (some ten billion light years away) and hitting a coin you were aiming at. The question is: Was that a lucky shot or are you a brilliant marksman? Likewise, is the fine balance of the universe a lucky happenstance or is there a brilliant designer behind it? I believe that there’s a brilliant designer behind it.”

Source: God, The Big Bang & Bunsen Burning Issues by Nigel Bovey, chap. 15 (Authentic Media 2008)
In his 1950 BBC radio series, The Nature of the Universe, Hoyle mockingly called this idea the ‘big bang,’ considering it preposterous. Yet the theory—and the derisive term—have become mainstream, not only in astronomy but in society as well.

Hoyle readily saw through the fallacious assumptions behind the ‘big bang’ theory. In 1994 he wrote, ‘Big-Bang cosmology refers to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of astronomy, and, in more than two decades, it has not produced a single successful prediction.’ Even though many people currently consider cosmic microwave background radiation a successful prediction of the ‘big bang,’ this is very shaky, and would fit better with Dr Russ Humphreys’ cosmological model that involves God having stretched out the cosmos:

“Thus says God, the Lord,
who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people on it
and spirit to those who walk in it”

Isaiah 42:5
English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)

Source: http://creation.com/big-bang-critic-dies-fred-hoyle

Tyler

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Responses to “‘The Big Bang’ was coined as a mocking term”

  1. Anonymous says:

    And what does that make us?

  2. The discovery of the complexity of the universe, caused Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001 was an English astronomer and mathematician) to change from his aetheist to creationist, i.e. realising that ‘intelligent design’ is the only answer that makes any sense.

    I’ve just found this on yahoo answers:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427022633AAnf24c

    Q: What startling scientific fact cause astronomer Fred Hoyle to abandon atheism?

    Here’s what astrophysicist Dr Rodney Holder says on this (in book detailed below):

    “The initial phase of the universe (that first fraction of a second from the Big Bang) had to be set up in a very special way in order for stars, galaxies and ultimately life to form. Cosmologist Fred Hoyle did some major work on the nuclear reactions that go on inside stars to form all the chemical elements out of the simplest building block, which is hydrogen. He discovered that there needs to be a very fine balance of the forces in nature in order to make carbon, and then to make oxygen without destroying the carbon. Although he didn’t believe in God, Hoyle said that his work led him to the conclusion that there was a super-intellect behind physics, chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

    “…The universe is sitting on a knife-edge as to whether it is going to expand for ever or eventually re-collapse. This is to do with how much total mass-energy there is in the universe. If there is more than a certain critical value, then gravity will pull the universe back and it will re-collapse. If there is less than that critical value, then gravity won’t be sufficient to pull the universe back, and it will expand fore ever.
    “Right back at the beginning, the universe needed to be very close to that knife-edge in order for stars, galaxies and planets to form. The mass-energy needed to be what it was to within 1 part in 10/60 (that’s ten with sixty noughts after it). That kind of accuracy would be the same as firing a gun from one end of the universe to the other (some ten billion light years away) and hitting a coin you were aiming at. The question is: Was that a lucky shot or are you a brilliant marksman? Likewise, is the fine balance of the universe a lucky happenstance or is there a brilliant designer behind it? I believe that there’s a brilliant designer behind it.”

    Source: God, The Big Bang & Bunsen Burning Issues by Nigel Bovey, chap. 15 (Authentic Media 2008)

    In his 1950 BBC radio series, The Nature of the Universe, Hoyle mockingly called this idea the ‘big bang,’ considering it preposterous. Yet the theory—and the derisive term—have become mainstream, not only in astronomy but in society as well.

    Hoyle readily saw through the fallacious assumptions behind the ‘big bang’ theory. In 1994 he wrote, ‘Big-Bang cosmology refers to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of astronomy, and, in more than two decades, it has not produced a single successful prediction.’ Even though many people currently consider cosmic microwave background radiation a successful prediction of the ‘big bang,’ this is very shaky, and would fit better with Dr Russ Humphreys’ cosmological model that involves God having stretched out the cosmos:

    “Thus says God, the Lord,
    who created the heavens and stretched them out,
    who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
    who gives breath to the people on it
    and spirit to those who walk in it”

    Isaiah 42:5
    English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)

    Source: http://creation.com/big-bang-critic-dies-fred-hoyle

  3. Anonymous says:

    Prophecy Servant of God
    ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
    word Atmak not necessarily means ‘whom I uphold’ but is infact a name

    the writing of Atmak is אתמך
    the writing of Ahmad is אחמד

    Isaiah 42:1
    God says
    “Behold, ‘My Servant’ (pronounced as Abd-ee), ‘whom I uphold’ (pronounced as Atmak);

    God mentioning about the coming of His servant
    Behold My Servant Ahmad (Isaiah 42:1) – so who is this Ahmad as in God’servant?

    He is none other than
    Abd-Allah Ahmad (Servant of God, Ahmad) – Prophet Muhammad s.a.w

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.