Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory?

:: Giant Waffle
:: Why that's simple! As I said already...
:: "There isn't enough matter in the universe to explain the universe."
:: Yup! That's it! That's the *whole* of the evidence for this "dark
:: matter".

That turns out not to be the case.

: David Johnston
: That is not correct. What they actually say is that there isn't
: enough detected matter in the universe to explain the motions of
: galaxies.

Not quite. There is not enough *light* *emitting* matter to explain
trajectories of stars *within* galaxies. Why a star's trajectory counts
as less direct than the trajectory of a photon of cherenkov radiation
has yet to be explained.

The point is, the conjecture that there must be extra matter for
cosmological reasons was followed by observation of specific stellar
trajectories in specific galaxies, and thus a quite specific and
moderately direct observation of mass that doesn't show up in optical
telescopes. No speculative "it must be somewhere" to it anymore; a
direct "it must be *right* *there* where that star is". Nobody found
dark matter convincing when it was just a cosmological speculation;
it was only after the confirmation that it gained significant favor.

A more recent confirmation is an observation of gravitational lensing in
colliding galaxies; the lensing doesn't follow where the light emitting
matter is. Again, this is as direct an observation as any in particle
physics in the lab. That is "there must be something there, because
it's actually distorting the light; I'm looking right at it!". That's
about as direct as it gets.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:32:27 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

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 mean like the fact that we have never directly observed an
electron? Shall we abandon electricity, then?

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:34:00 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

That is not correct. What they actually say is that there isn't
enough detected matter in the universe to explain the motions of
galaxies. Now they could of course throw up their hands and give up
on figuring it out, but then they could have thrown up their hands and
given up on the difficult question of why Mercury wasn't in the right
place according to Newton's laws. It's just not what a good scientist
does.

A good scientist does not make up invisible matter that can't
be detected in any way and claim it's a fact that it exists.

But it can be detected by it's gravitational influence. And I snip
most of your post because you are incredibly long winded.

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?


Something made up to explain a paradox.

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

: Emmanual Kann
: Something made up to explain a paradox.

A "paradox"? What paradox? You'll only belive things
you can see with photons? Well... like I said, dark matter
*has* been seen by the light shining through it.

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

Now you'll have to come up with some reason why seeing is *not* believing.
Don't worry. I'm sure you'll come up with something.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

Giant Waffle wrote:

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?

On 25 Sep 2006 11:22:51 -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:


Giant Waffle wrote:

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.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 25 Sep 2006 11:22:51 -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:


Giant Waffle wrote:

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.

I would say that the universe itself is physical evidence of the
existence of a universe. What about the universe suggests any
association with the Christian God?

On 25 Sep 2006 11:29:39 -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:

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.

I would say that the universe itself is physical evidence of the
existence of a universe.

It's both.

What about the universe suggests any association with the Christian God?

It conforms with Christian's theories about God. There are many
alternative explanations for any given set of evidence. One of them
is that the universe was created by God.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 25 Sep 2006 11:29:39 -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:

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.

I would say that the universe itself is physical evidence of the
existence of a universe.

It's both.

How?

What about the universe suggests any association with the Christian God?

It conforms with Christian's theories about God. There are many
alternative explanations for any given set of evidence. One of them
is that the universe was created by God.

You mean, for example, the explanation that the universe was created in
seven days (well, six, really) 'long 'bout 6,000 years ago? Do you
have any evidence besides the book of Genesis for that being so?