Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 20:11:17 +0100
In article <1149964122.052785.193710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ken
S. Tucker <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sure is, and it looks homogeneous to limit of observation.
Based on "hard" science I respect an infinite universe with
a finite energy density. The data fit is as good or better
than the old BB conjecture.
How do you explain the anisotropies of the CMB?
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: FrediFizzx
- 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
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Greg Hansen
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: glhansen@xxxxxxx
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Prev by Date: Re: Where is ahaha.... ahahahanson?
- Next by Date: Re: Guys if you have savings....
- Previous by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Next by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|