Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?


PD wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Greg Hansen wrote:
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.

Let's be careful, there is no evidence that the
so-called "Red Shift" is of Doppler origin, that's
an assumption. And the idea that CMBR are
radiation remanents of the BB is really pushing
strange assumptions, again without evidence.

IMO BB is a conjecture requiring the suspension
of the laws of physics at some point (as PD said)
without any valid replacement, A.K.A. a MIRACLE,
therefore we have no theory for the MIRACLE and
so BB is NOT a theory, though an interesting
conjecture,

Well, it's a bit more than that. It is an *event*

An "event" coordinated in spacetime?

whether we have an
explanation for it or not, or whether we know anything about it before
our laws of physics kicked in or not.

"laws of physics kicked in or not"
is not based on theory.

In a sense, it doesn't matter
whether you extrapolate all the way back to a singularity. The fact is,
extrapolating *known* physics

You have soft data indicating a Red-Shift
and a CMBR, and you're selling a BB that
is contrary to all known experiments, and
you want us to believe you because it's
comfortable.
((I'll stretch out on my nail bed and ponder)).

to the edge of where they apply (~1E-34
s), the universe was a much different place than it is now, and at that
edge it was rapidly expanding. If you would prefer to call that *edge*
the Big Bang, I have no problem with that, given that we know so little
about the little bit of spacetime on the other side of the edge.

Ok fine, that's a conjecture.
Ken

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - Whats wrong with answersingenesis.com?
    ... >>> all these pieces of evidence is that they are not conclusive enough. ... the rest of us don't choose to "believe in" the Big Bang. ... were no point sources at the time the universe was cooling. ... Asking where the 'singularity' was ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... At one time "science" was regarded as something ... to cover the 1e-34 seconds after the Big Bang, ... with the evidence for it. ... every once in a while rags like Physics Today ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Very OT
    ... |> science class as if it was not pure mythology. ... which sometimes can be pretty close to mythology. ... Astrogeology is not my field but what I remember from intro geology is that stars and planets slowly accreted due to gravitational attraction from matter that came into existence with the big bang. ... And there are sufficient other theories with sufficent evidence that still makes it all a big guess. ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: Questions for a Theist
    ... "Do you believe there was a time the universe did not exist". ... I believe the big bang theory, that there was a time the universe did ... The evidence for the big bang put paid to steady state long ago. ... better, more accurate words to describe, to pretend they are beliefs ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Major Blow Dealt Against Intelligent Design/Creationism Doctrine (Again)
    ... Your understanding of physics is severely lacking. ... Intelligent design is far less scientific than the big bang. ... That's because science looks only at existing evidence. ... some scientist just found evidence for pink unicorns! ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
Loading