Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:17:39 +0000, Giant Waffle wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:37:17 -0400, Alan Anderson
you decided to say:
Giant Waffle wrote:
We have not directly observed an atom, period.

Actually, we have.

Actually, we have not.

Actually, we have. As I wrote before, look up "atomic force microscope"
some time. There have been other mechanisms used to image single atoms,
but that is the most compelling.

Or are you claiming that those physicists are liars?
--
Frank Mayhar http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:17:39 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:
- Refer:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:37:17 -0400, Alan Anderson
you decided to say:


Giant Waffle wrote:

Dark matter, IMO, was a ridiculous approach to the problem,
plain and simple.

Dark matter was not an "approach to the problem".

Yes, it was. It was an attempt to avoid admitting
the truth and it was conjured up out of pure imagination.

Unlike your "Gods"!!!

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:29:46 +0930, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gray 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.

Many would be idiots.

No, they simply have a different world view.

As does anyone who suffers from an acquired mental illness.

And others.

Do you really think that the "argument" that religious people are
mentally ill has any power to sway their convictions?

You pretend that such is my intention, yet it reveals nothing more
than confusion on your behalf.

Then what is your intention?

Do you think that doctors seek to sway the Polio virus by referring to
it as an illness?

No. Do you have more non sequiturs? I am, unsurprisingly, (un)eager
to hear them.

You conflate a description of pure fact with an argument to prevent
the consequences.

That religious people are mentally ill is a "pure fact"?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:57:34 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Wayne Throop) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

:: So, dirty clothing is abundant physical evidence that Lint the
:: Laundry God exists. Cool!

: h (Rand Simberg)
: It is indeed.

"Abundant". You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'm pretty sure it does.

: Of course, evidence has to be evaluated.

Of course, it's a tad difficult to see what you mean by "evidence".

Evidence is available facts that cause people to think a belief valid.
Some people believe that God created the universe. The fact that the
universe exists is evidence that their belief is valid. I'm not sure
what your problem is.

Is there anything which is not evidence of anything else? I mean,
the fact that I see a striped cat in the room is "abundant evidence"
that there is, in fact, no striped cat in the room, since after all
the government mind control satellites mean that everything you see
is a lie, qed. Abundant evidence that I am the new Schroedinger.
That does seem to be the standard of "abundant evidence" you are sticking
to, since you perform no "evaluation" of the chain of alleged logic by
which a hypothesis accounts for an observation.

This word salad wouldn't seem to be relevant to the discussion.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:32:30 +0930, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gray made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

You have made a claim. You claim matter is there. That is
not evidence.
Here's where you lose me -- you take science to task for not being able
to verify all its theories -- where is ONE BIT of physical evidence
pointing to the existence of God?

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

But arguing from numbers is somewhat invalid....many once though the
world was flat, and the centre of the universe.

I'm not sure what your point is. Evidence is evidence, regardless of
the analysis of it.

Yet the "existence of the universe" is no more "evidence" for the
existence of your "god", any more than it is evidence for the
existence of the Flying Spahetti Monster.

What mental defect causes you to think I have a "god"?

I don't have a god. I'm an agnostic. The existence of the universe
is evidence both for a Christian god, and for the flying "Spahetti"
[sic] monster.

It is an argument from ignorance, coupled with special pleading, and
holds no forensic validity.

No, it's just evidence. Arguments are something else entirely.

: h (Rand Simberg)
: Evidence is available facts that cause people to think a belief valid.

Right. So as I said, the my observation of a striped cat in the room
makes me think there is no striped cat in the room is a valid, even
valid*ated* belief. Which fits the way you are using the term
"abundant evidence", yet fits just about nobody else's use of
any term containing the word "evidence".

: This word salad wouldn't seem to be relevant to the discussion.

Word salad. Uh-huh. Sure. Pretend it's hard to parse. Good stratey.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

Giant Waffle wrote:

: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.

Head obviously up and locked and ignoring all facts.

Goodbye.

plonk

An Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:30:17 -0500, El Puerco schreibt:

"Emmanual Kann" wrote in message
news
An Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:09:03 -0700, Gene Ward Smith schreibt:

Um, we've observed dark matter, sorry.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/di...ml#dark_matter


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?

Is that how you read that definition?

I read it this way. General Relativity predicts A, we observe B, dark
matter is B-A.

::: 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?

: Emmanual Kann
: Is that how you read that definition?
: I read it this way. General Relativity predicts A, we observe B, dark
: matter is B-A.

Where does general relativity come into it? This is much simpler.
The mass we infer from the visible light of a galaxy is X, the mass we
infer from falling stars in this galaxy (ie, "galaxy rotation curves")
is Y, dark matter is Y-X. So far, no relativity is involved, except
insofar as general relativistic gravity approximates newtonian gravity.
And of course, the "until now"; now it's been detected by gravitational
lensing of regions swept clear of X. You might say general relativity
comes into it due to gravitational lensing, but that wasn't
in the text marked ":::".

And note, that while the question of exactly what the dark matter is
is still a problem, that it exists is fairly firmly established.

"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.

--- The Walrus and the Carpenter,
Lewis Carroll

Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:21:08 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:
- Refer:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:29:46 +0930, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gray 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.

Many would be idiots.

No, they simply have a different world view.

As does anyone who suffers from an acquired mental illness.

And others.

Do you really think that the "argument" that religious people are
mentally ill has any power to sway their convictions?

You pretend that such is my intention, yet it reveals nothing more
than confusion on your behalf.

Then what is your intention?

No.

Do you think that doctors seek to sway the Polio virus by referring to
it as an illness?

No. Do you have more non sequiturs? I am, unsurprisingly, (un)eager
to hear them.

Non sequitur?
It was exactly germane to the discussion, and an almost exact parallel
of my assertion.

You conflate a description of pure fact with an argument to prevent
the consequences.

That religious people are mentally ill is a "pure fact"?

Yes.