Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Jun 2006 08:32:59 -0700
glhansen@xxxxxxx wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Read your post Mr. Hansen,
At one time "science" was regarded as something
based on repeatable observations. But recently
science now includes social science, statistics,
tea leaves, bumps on head and anything else
that is politically correct.
Cosmological origin - assuming there was one -
cannot be repeated,
That does not preclude scientific investigation. Like archaeology or
paleontology, we still make models of the process and look for evidence
to test those models.
the evidence is the universe
always existed, as no contradiction of conservation
of mass-energy has been found.
You're making some pretty drastic assumptions there. For one, you're
assuminng that conservation of energy, or the symmetry of the
Lagrangian over time, as you know it, applies before an event that, as
the lore goes, created time itself. And to the extent that it's
sensible to talk about a time before the Big Bang, you're assuming that
the energy didn't exist before then.
BB throwed out Energy conservation and to do
that advocated time can be created or destroyed,
then invent a new matter to explain apparent
"inflation", all with no known theory or experiment..
All of that must be taken on faith in the BB
conjecture, all that does is define God's powers,
that's religious!
Do you require the paleontologist to explain abiogenesis before he can
say something about the evolution of horses?
Ah, comparing evolution of horses with the universe,
is that sound theory? Not in my books...
Ken
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: glhansen@xxxxxxx
- 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: glhansen@xxxxxxx
- Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Prev by Date: Re: Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 60: Reminder About Renormalization and Look At 59 Again
- Next by Date: Re: Flourishing fast :-)
- Previous by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Next by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|