Re: The oldest explosion in the universe


"T Wake" <taswakeAT@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ONOdnXRxw8Wt3Y7ZRVny0A@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On Saturday 11 March 2006 20:03, Billy decided it was time and wrote in
sci.physics (<X1GQf.12079$Uc2.5381@fed1read04>):


"T Wake" <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ULidnaey8-L8to7ZRVnysg@xxxxxxxxxxxx


I have never seen tadchem espouse a theory which required a cause for
the
big bang.

The theory that is was caused, and caused by mass, is your theory.

Are you asking others to prove your theory?

It's not my theory, it's the theroy of the Big bang. Perhaps you should
read up on it.

Did I miss the bit where it had a cause?

Can you point me in the direction of where the accepted theory (not the
coffee table pop-science book versions) dictates that the mass existed and
required a causal agent?

I would love to learn more from you.


1st thing you will learn from me is "Don't come to class without doing your
homework"
No accepted theory suggest the Bang made the matter, just distributed it.
Unless you are prepaid to show otherwise, class is dismissed.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The oldest explosion in the universe
    ... No accepted theory suggest the Bang made the matter, ... Unless you are prepaid to show otherwise, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The oldest explosion in the universe
    ... it's the theroy of the Big bang. ... The widely accepted theory of the creation of the universe is the Big Bang ... gigantic explosion of the primeval atom and that the various elements ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The oldest explosion in the universe
    ... Hence i really doubt the existence of a singular ... How you interact with your belief system is ... As for the "creation" aspect of the big bang - the generally accepted theory ...
    (sci.physics)