Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Greg Hansen <glhansen@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:08:51 -0500
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
PD wrote:
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
I'm surprised that you've missed this stuff. Big Bang theories are based on general relativity. You know, that "greatest blunder" can't get a static universe stuff? Intuitively, it seems pretty obvious that if stuff is moving away from us, then it was a lot closer in the past (cite redshifting versus distance as evidence). Structure of the background radiation, every once in a while rags like Physics Today publish new comparisons of measurement with theory. Gravitational lensing apparantly caused by clumps of the dark matter that some wrote off as fiction. Theories of Big Bang nucleosynthesis correctly predict ratios of primordial isotopes.
There's actually quite a bit more than zero evidence there.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- 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
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Prev by Date: Re: A Realistic Nuclear-powered 400nm laser
- Next by Date: Re: Lazy Invariance Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Next by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|