Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory?

rick++ wrote:
You have no understanding of religion or science.
Please shut up your ignorance.


The bible thumpers make fun of science, while simultaneously claiming
that "theology" is science. Talk about contradictions!

If we look at any science - astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, we
see enormous and accelerating progress. If theology is science, what
are the theologist's latest discoveries , say, from 1950 ?

Giant Waffle wrote:
On 25 Sep 2006 11:46:36 -0700, "Michael Altarriba"
you decided to say:


dark matter
Name given to the amount of mass whose existence is deduced from the
analysis of galaxy rotation curves but which until now, has escaped all
detections. There are many theories on what dark matter could be. Not one,
at the moment is convincing enough and the question is still a mystery.

Still, there is clearly something (matter) there that we can't see (dark).
What else should we call it?

You have made a claim. You claim matter is there. That is
not evidence.


One of the ways we have evidence of matter is that it reflects,

You have no evidence of dark matter.


We have observed the lensing of light consistent with the presence of
there being matter which we are otherwise unable to detect.

You may feel free to present said evidence and I promise
that I will consider it. If you can prove your case (I use
that word loosely), then I will believe it. I am not against
science itself and if there is dark matter there, then so
be it! Then it is there. Or at least, something is there.



http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/

1E 0657-56: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter



This composite image shows the galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56, also known as
the "bullet cluster." This cluster was formed after the collision of
two large clusters of galaxies, the most energetic event known in the
universe since the Big Bang.

Hot gas detected by Chandra in X-rays is seen as two pink clumps in the
image and contains most of the "normal," or baryonic, matter in the two
clusters. The bullet-shaped clump on the right is the hot gas from one
cluster, which passed through the hot gas from the other larger cluster
during the collision. An optical image from Magellan and the Hubble
Space Telescope shows the galaxies in orange and white. The blue areas
in this image show where astronomers find most of the mass in the
clusters. The concentration of mass is determined using the effect of
so-called gravitational lensing, where light from the distant objects
is distorted by intervening matter. Most of the matter in the clusters
(blue) is clearly separate from the normal matter (pink), giving direct
evidence that nearly all of the matter in the clusters is dark.

The hot gas in each cluster was slowed by a drag force, similar to air
resistance, during the collision. In contrast, the dark matter was not
slowed by the impact because it does not interact directly with itself
or the gas except through gravity. Therefore, during the collision the
dark matter clumps from the two clusters moved ahead of the hot gas,
producing the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the
image. If hot gas was the most massive component in the clusters, as
proposed by alternative theories of gravity, such an effect would not
be seen. Instead, this result shows that dark matter is required.



And here is the picture

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/1e0657.jpg


Now, show us a picture of God. We are waiting.

: Giant Waffle
: You have no evidence of dark matter.

The fact that you can ignore evidence doesn't mean there isn't any.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

::::::: Many would say that the universe itself is abundant physical
::::::: evidence for the existence of God.

:: But you have to ask yourself, if you're being intellectually honest:
:: What else might the universe mean?

: Yes. So?

So "the universe itself" is not "abundant" evidence for God.
It is actually very weak evidence for God. Unless by "abundant"
you merely mean that the universe is loverly, dark, and deep,
and not "persuasive" or "well matched to the hypothesis" or such.


"Weak as water, weak as water!" --- Mrs. Slocombe


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On 25 Sep 2006 13:16:37 -0700, you
decided to say:


http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/

1E 0657-56: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

I'm sorry, but that is not a truthful claim. Gases are not
proof of dark matter. And that which you are forced to
confess cannot be detected, cannot be proved by gases.

What you are doing, is to try to claim that there is no
other possibility, because you prefer to believe in this
dark matter, which was nothing more than something
that was imagined up out of thin air, having zero
evidence when it was postulated.

I.e.: "We know there isn't enough matter in the universe,
so we'll fantasize that there is more, that cannot be detected
even though we know that there is no reason not to be
able to detect matter."


This composite image shows the galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56, also known as
the "bullet cluster." This cluster was formed after the collision of
two large clusters of galaxies, the most energetic event known in the
universe since the Big Bang.

Which means nothing as far as dark matter is concerned.


Hot gas

Is just that... hot gas. It does not prove that dark matter
exists.


The hot gas in each cluster was slowed by a drag force, similar to air
resistance, during the collision. In contrast, the dark matter was not
slowed by the impact because it does not interact directly with itself
or the gas except through gravity.

This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. The assumption
is made before hand. It is assumed that it is dark matter and
then it is said, "Look, the dark matter was not slowed by the
impact!".

You assume it's true FIRST and then claim that the effect seen
is proof of dark matter, by claiming that the dark matter,
which you first assumed was there, was not slowed, never
answering the question of how can it be said that it was
dark matter that was slowed, when it cannot be detected,
nor measured, which is why the supposed "amount"
keeps changing every time they need it to, to fix their
calculations.

You can assume what you wish. You have not seen
dark matter, nor has anyone else and gas does not
prove the source, especially when the source was
assumed before beginning. (:

__

Giant Waffle

After seeing the way that usenet is, I post this word
of advice as my signature...

I don't bother with peoples' railing comments, nor with
comments meant to distract from the discussion, because
you are unable to answer the hard questions that may arise
as a response to claims that you might make, nor do I play
games with God's word.

If you wish to be rude, go find a mirror and see if the
person you see there would appreciate it. And if the
person you find in that mirror wouldn't, then you know
why I have ended my conversation with you. Rather,
I have chosen to ignore and forget you, at least until
you learn some common decency and respect.

And yes, there is a difference between being insulting
and being direct. And no, that does not mean that being
insulting and calling it "the truth" means that you are
being direct. It means that you are being insulting.

Do not pretend to be my brother, while stabbing me in
the back and then quoting Bible verses that speak of
good men, falsely applying them to yourself, as those
who are wolves in sheep's clothing often do. (:

This obviously does not apply to everyone. Just to those
who wish to act in the manner described. To the rest,
please ignore this word of advice.

Giant Waffle

On 25 Sep 2006 11:22:51 -0700, "Snakes and Babies"
you decided to say:


Giant Waffle wrote:

You have made a claim. You claim matter is there. That is
not evidence.

Here's where you lose me

With all due respect, I would say that you aren't very well
equipped for this discussion then.


-- you take science to task for not being able
to verify all its theories

You can pretend that's the case all you want. The fact is,
that you are equating made up, imaginary things with
science. Science is a method. When men make things up
out of sheer imagination, which is what dark matter is,
that has nothing to do with science, except that it can be
called a hypothesis. But a theory? No!

Hypotheses become theories if they have sufficient explanatory power.
The idea atoms, for example, is an example of a hypothesis
which was "made up out of sheer imagination" because
if such things did exist, they would conveniently explain a whole
range of phenomena, from the fact that chemicals combine
in discrete proportions to the behavior of heated gases to the
dance of pollen grains in water. In fact as late as the end
of the 19th century some major players in science thought
that the idea of atoms was nothing more than a convenient
bookkeeping construct, and did not reflect reality (Ernst
Mach being an outstanding example). In fact even today
you can say the we "have seen our atoms" only under the very
broadest interpretation of the word "see". And yet very
few doubt this act of sheer imagnation which is called
"the atomic theory"

Dark matter is a similar construct: something which, if it
exists, would explain a set of observations -- that
galaxies do not fly apart.

That observation alone is not sufficent to prove the
existence of dark matter, but if separate lines
of evidence are found, this would strengthen
the case, even if, like atoms, it is never observed
directly.


Now if men wish to postulate this imagined up idea,
that's there choice. I won't even criticize them for it.
But to claim it is a valid theory and that it should be
taught as fact, which it is, is to plainly ridicule science.

Where is dark matter "taught as a fact"? Oh, I am certain
that you can find carelessly phrased articles all over
the net, but I am curious what you meant by "taught".


You speak of scienTISTS, as if they are science.

ScienTISTS = MEN

Science = a method

You falsely equate the two and pretend that anything
a man might say, is fact, as long as he says it happened
all by itself. That is the deception you have to live with.


-- where is ONE BIT of physical evidence
pointing to the existence of God?

All over the universe, son, which is why many astronomers,
for example, have come to believe in Him.

I'm curious why you say "Him". Even if someone feels
that he has seen convincing evidence of the handiwork
of a Designer, that by itself says absolutely nothing
about the nature of such a designer, let alone that
It has anything in common with the various gods and
goddesses of our many religions.



You can't get something from nothing. That is a fact.

Intuition is a product of experience. We have intuition
about the medium-scale, short-term phenomena we can observe
during our lifetimes, but given that no one has any experience
with The Beginning of All That Is (assuming that there even
was a beginning), then any supposed intuition about whether
or not something can come from nothing is useless.

And to quibble, Heisenberg's principle says that something
can indeed come from nothing if that something is sufficently
short-lived. The Casimir effect seems to confirm that
this does happen, and happens constantly, in the quantum
vacuum.


Life only comes from life. That is a fact.

If that is a fact, then life stretches backwards forever, with
no beginning.


Now you go ahead and believe what you want to. But bear
in mind, *YOU* are the one bringing God into this discussion.

Why? So you can *AVOID* the subject that I actually was
discussing. And that subject is that dark matter has never
been observed and cannot be measured and was something
that was MADE UP OUT OF THIN AIR, to try to account for
the fact that there isn't enough matter in the universe to
old it all together.

No, no one says that dark matter holds the universe together.
Dark matter was postulated in order to hold galaxies together.


Go ahead and postulate dark matter. More power to ya!

Just don't claim it's a fact and teach it to people as fact.

There are no theories in science known to be absolutely, only those
whose power to explain is so useful that they tend to be regarded
as fact. The dark matter hypothesis certainly falls short of
qualifying as a theory at this point. Further observations
may lend more support, or they may not.

-- cary

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:49:18 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:


We have observed the lensing of light consistent with the presence of
there being matter which we are otherwise unable to detect.

You may feel free to present said evidence and I promise
that I will consider it.

Are you in fact qualified to evaluate the validity of gravitic lensing
as evidence of the presence of non-luminous mass?

Rand Simberg wrote:

Could be. That's another theory that fits the available evidence.
close enough! I'll call that a victory for us evolutionists!

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:23:05 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Wayne Throop) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

::::::: Many would say that the universe itself is abundant physical
::::::: evidence for the existence of God.

:: But you have to ask yourself, if you're being intellectually honest:
:: What else might the universe mean?

: Yes. So?

So "the universe itself" is not "abundant" evidence for God.

The universe is pretty damn big, so to the degree that it's existence
is evidence for God, it's abundant.

It is actually very weak evidence for God. Unless by "abundant"
you merely mean that the universe is loverly, dark, and deep,
and not "persuasive" or "well matched to the hypothesis" or such.

I didn't claim that it was convincing evidence from a scientific
standpoint. I was simply pointing out that many consider it to be
evidence.

On 25 Sep 2006 13:37:32 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Snakes and
Babies" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:

Could be. That's another theory that fits the available evidence.
close enough! I'll call that a victory for us evolutionists!

Not really. As I said, there are an infinite number of them.