Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Jun 2006 11:50:24 -0700
PD wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
PD wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
PD wrote:
BIG SNIP
Therefore it does
no good to try to extrapolate what we know from the universe *today* to
deduce what must have happened or been in force then. It simply is not
true that what is trustworthy in our universe can be assumed to be
trustworthy then.
PD
What a load of religious crap, PD conveniently
suspends the Laws of Physics to create a
universe, where do these crack-pots come from?
And what laws of physics (currently known) in particular applied at the
Big Bang?
PD
The BB is a *conjecture* that requires the
suspension of disbelief, it's NOT a theory,
it's a religion.
Ken
No, it doesn't *require* a suspension of disbelief.
And Mr. God asks Mrs. God, "where the hell did I
put the Conservation of Mass-Energy Law, I figure
we throw that in."
You may find it unbelievable,
Yup I do.
but that's irrelevant to whether others feel comfortable
with the evidence for it.
That's religious, there is NO evidence for a BB.
Ken
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Greg Hansen
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Dave
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- References:
- Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Martha
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: PD
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: PD
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: PD
- Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Prev by Date: Re: sinh, cosh Lorentz Xformations: illumination or obfuscation?
- Next by Date: Re: sinh, cosh Lorentz Xformations: illumination or obfuscation?
- Previous by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Next by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|