Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory?

: Giant Waffle
: 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!".

No, that's a distortion of what was said. What was said was that
there's hot, luminous gas, which is observed to be slowed down by
the impact, and there's lots of mass that *isn't* luminous, and
which *wasn't* slowed down by the impact. If you don't want to
call the part that wasn't slowed down and doesn't emit light
"dark matter", that says more about your blinders than about
the evidence itself.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:36:50 GMT, 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. Gases are not
proof of dark matter.

Gases ARE dark matter if they aren't luminous.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:34:19 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

On 25 Sep 2006 14:50:15 -0400, (William
December Starr) you decided to say:


In article ,
Giant Waffle said:

The truth is, you snipped almost all of my post, because you
knew it was truth.

I choose not to waste my time with someone who refuses to
confess to the truth of a statement. Again, this only proves
the desperation of those who wish it to be so. (:

Goodbye now.

Goodbye. Please stay away forever.

I know that truth hurts you.

You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you over the head.

__

Giant Waffle

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

Arrogance.

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.

What "God's word", hypocrite?

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.

When are you going to show any decency and respect, whining hypocrite?

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.

Hypocrite.

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. (:

Hypocrite and liar.

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.

It describes you to a tee, hypocrite.

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

:: I'm sorry, but that is not a truthful claim. Gases are not proof of
:: dark matter.

: Gases ARE dark matter if they aren't luminous.

Plus, it seems likely Waffle is confusing "gas" (the stuff that's been
heated and deflected by the impact, is emitting light, and colorcoded
pink) with the topic of the page (the stuff that hasn't been heated,
hasn't been deflected, isn't emitting light, and colorcoded blue).

But whether it's gas, or something else, whatever you call it, it is

1) dark (because it isn't emitting light), and
2) matter (because it has mass, distorting the light
of objects behind it)

You don't want to call this "evidence for dark matter", shrug.
You can lead folks to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.

Gordon, Waffle, and Mr Blik
When the old lady died she left them rich
A mansion, cars, life's a kick!
Catscratch!

--- Catscratch theme song
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catscratch


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

Giant Waffle ha escrito:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:21:42 GMT, David Johnston
you decided to say:


On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:49:00 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

On 24 Sep 2006 16:09:03 -0700, "Gene Ward Smith"
you decided to say:


Gene (May I call you Gene?),

I hope you aren't personally offended by my response,
but you were very blunt in your post and so, I will also
be quite blunt in my response. Please understand, it is
not meant as an attack.


Sound of Trumpet wrote:

The big bang today relies on a growing number
of hypothetical entities, things that we have never
observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy
are the most prominent examples.

If they are needed to explain observations, then why
doesn't that count as being observed?

Because they weren't "observed".

Science is _full_ of things that are the product of indirect
observation but are still very useful.

You can make all of the claims you want, but you have not
provided any facts. You know what I said is true, which is
why you snipped it and falsely claimed that dark matter is
indirectly observed.

__

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.

well, well.
neutrinos were not observed in the first place. They were deducted
from the spreading of energy in beta decay from some atoms. Physicists
are having trouble with the observation and the theory of neutrinos.
In the same way, dark matter was also a deduction from some
observations in astronomy. Thye had to postulate the existence of dark
matter to explain certain effects observed. If they have already found
or not, any evidence of dark matter, this something irrelevant for the
moment. They will find it in the future if they can, or perhaps they
never would do. This is science. Not all are observations, but there
are alos some asumptions and some deductions. But scientist are men,
and men are fallible. Not like the writers of the Holy Books, if they
were fallible, they would have corrected already the thousands of
serious mistakes that are written in their holy books.
But a writer inspired by the gods, can not commit errors, so they are
not going to change a comma or erase any error whatever. By example,
the geneology of Jesus, that is totally fake. We know it is fake,
because there are two of them. But are they going to accept this is
something wrong? No! They are infallible, like the Pope of Rome.
They seem to me a bunch a cretins.
Leopoldo

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:16:04 GMT, (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects...rticleID=12956

Interesting - I didn't see this before. Have to see where this
takes us... :-)

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. Gases are not
proof of dark matter. And that which you are forced to
confess cannot be detected, cannot be proved by gases.


If gases are not proof, what would be the proof that could persuade
you?

Could it be the Bible?

The Bible is amazing and awesome book - no matter what new things
godless secular liberal scientists discover, bible-believing scientists
show that these things were already described in the Bible.

Here, one Biblical scientist shows from clear biblical evidence that
dark matter is real. Could it be enough for you?


http://www.theswordbearer.org/spD002_Flood.html



THE FIRMAMENT

Let's take a brief look at "dark matter" in order to see how a
Bible believer might
use discernment when he reads the daily newspaper. The Big Bang theory
so
popular with scientists says a ball of matter exploded, driving the
matter outward.
But the outward-traveling bits of matter did not continue to expand and
get
farther away from each other. Some of them got close enough so
gravitational
attraction could pull them into swirling galaxies. All stars are in
galaxies. The
galaxies are far away from each other. So far, in fact, that all the
stars it is
possible for us to see at night are in our own Milky Way Galaxy. In
between
galaxies science always thought there was nothing - no stars, "no
nothing;" just
the void and vacuum of outer space.

But that didn't sit well with scientists because if the Big Bang did
happen, all of
the outward-traveling matter would not have collected into galaxies
with nothing
in between. In fact, it is stretching it to say that even 10% of the
matter would
have randomly collected into galaxies. That leaves 90% of the matter in
the
universe missing out there somewhere. And that makes the theory look
pretty
weak.

But along comes the C.O.B.E. Project, which you probably read in the
news
provided "confirming evidence" of the Big Bang theory. In essence,
they aimed
sensitive radiation-detecting equipment out in space between galaxies
in an effort
to see if anything is really there in the void. (In other words,
looking for the
missing 90% of the Big Bang theory.)

They used radiation-detecting equipment because all matter emits
radiation - heat
radiation, since nothing exists at a temperature of absolute zero. And
out in the
"void" or "vacuum" of space between galaxies they got on their
recording charts
a faint wavy line. (A flat line would mean nothing was there.)

So the big news, they say, is that the missing 90% of the universe has
been found.
Since they cannot see the matter they call it dark matter. And that
dark matter is
believed to validate the Big Bang theory. And from their Reasonable
scientific
perspective you and I can see how they'd think they are on the right
track. And
their error doesn't bother us at all; they can bark at the moon all
they want. But
you and I have an advantage over scientists because you and I are not
prohibited
by the rules of philosophy from letting the Bible guide our thoughts.

Think of a fish bowl or a birdcage, for example: Everything in it -
fish or birds -
has detectable radiation. And even if we can't see the water or the air
they still
emit radiation because there is something there. So we don't say that
the space
between the fish and birds is a void or vacuum, because that space is
not nothing;
it is something. And we don't call that
radiation-emitting-but-invisible stuff dark
matter, because we've already called it air and water.

OK, what's the point? The point is you and I knew all of this stuff
about the
universe long before the Big Bang theory and the C.O.B.E. Project:

God made the fish and the birds. So they really exist - they aren't
nothing, a void,
or a vacuum. And God made the water and the air. So they also really
exist. Why
do they exist? Because God created them. What did God do with the birds
and
the fish? He put them in the invisible air and water.

God also made the sun, the moon, and the stars. So they really exist
- they aren't
nothing, a void, or a vacuum. And God made the firmament. So it also
really
exists. Why does it exist? Because God created it. What did God do with
the sun,
moon, and stars? He put them in the invisible firmament (Ge 1:17). So
all these
years while scientists have been barking at the moon and telling us the
sun, moon,
and stars were in nothing, a vacuum, a void, you and I just rolled our
eyes and
thought, "Will they ever learn?" And when the C.O.B.E. Project
"discovered"
that the sun, moon, and, stars really are in something after all, you
and I just rolled
our eyes in disgust because they called it dark matter instead of the
firmament,
and because they thought it validated the Big Bang instead of the Bible.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:32:29 GMT, (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

: Len Lekx
: BUT - until they *are* observed... DIRECTLY... the idea is still suspect.
In what sense is the observation of a neutrino "direct"?
You "observe" cherenkov radiation, which in the theory is due to

Quite correct... it's not a direct observation.

And this you class as more "direct" than "you observe an object
falling, which in the theory is due to mass"?

But that's not an argument for the presence of Dark Matter. Any
more than "you observe an object falling faster than you expect it to"
is an argument for higher mass than measured... maybe our current
theory of gravity is incomplete.

Admittedly, I'm not very close to the problem - I'm not up on the
current information. I'm here because I want to know more...

: Len Lekx
: But that's not an argument for the presence of Dark Matter. Any
: more than "you observe an object falling faster than you expect it to"
: is an argument for higher mass than measured... maybe our current
: theory of gravity is incomplete.
:
: Admittedly, I'm not very close to the problem - I'm not up on the
: current information. I'm here because I want to know more...

Last I heard, all proposed "altered rules for gravity" run aground
on the little problem that they predict different orbits than the
ones we actually see for nearby objects, such as planets and the such.
Sometimes the deviation is small, but again, last I heard, there weren't
any contenders other than "there's something massive there".
This is especially true of the latest gravitational lensing discovery.

"There's no dark matter" was hanging on by a thread before.
With this latest, the thread has snapped and it's hovering
over the chasm like a Warner Brother's cartoon character who
hasn't yet realized he's walked over the cliff. So to type.

Not that the various theories about precisely what dark matter is
are having an easy time of it. It's a tough problem. But
pretending there's "no evidence" as others have is a non-starter.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

Rand Simberg wrote:
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.

http://www.frankpanucci.com/Zeedoo.htm