XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism
From: Barry@saymyname.com
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:18:18 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:07:16 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:57:00 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:05:11 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:42:45 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100
>>>>>Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:31:22 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On 15/11/2016 8:01 PM, Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
>>>>>> >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.
>>>>>> >>>> Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found
>>>>>> >>>>> in the expansion of the universe.
>>>>>> >>>>> Also in the interpretation of quantium mechanics. But
>>>>>> >>>>> there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone
>>>>>> >>>> who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Bollocks.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.
>>>>>> The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for
>>>>>> an answer. It has no scientific basis.
>>
>>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse .
>>
>>Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
>>scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
>>to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
>>public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
>>fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
>>philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
>>falsified.
>>
>>Arguments against multiverse theories
>>
>>In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
>>Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
>>of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :
>>
>> For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
>>tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
>>regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
>>but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
>>there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
>>limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
>>faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
>>multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
>>discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
>>explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
>>invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
>>scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
>>faith.
>
>What part of "nobody insists it is anything more than theoretical" are
>you pretending not to understand?
>
>It is just one of many scenarios suggested, for watever or wherever
>the big bang occured "in".
I don't understand how it does that. Please explain.
>That's all.
>
>Nobody insists that any one of them is the correct one.
>
>Given that spacetime itself expanded from the big bang, and that we
>are inside the big bang's event horizon, it is reasonable to suggest
>that it happened "in" a somewhere with a different frame of reference.
>However, we have no idea what this "somewhere" is and can only
>speculate.
>
>And the multiverse is one of these speculations.
I hope you will explain your theory.
>>>>>> Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
>>>>>> without any being discovered.
>>>>>
>>>>>What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
>>>>>there...
>>>>
>>>>That's my point. Some scientists believe black holes exist even
>>>>though none have been detected.
>>>
>>>Of course they have, imbecile.
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
>>
>>Nothing in there supporting the existence of black holes.
>
>That link should have been pasted a paragraph or so earlier.
>
>A link to the Wikipedia bage on black holes should have been pasted
>here.
>
>>>>>> The Big Bang theory seems
>>>>>> to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Big Bang theory is based on observation.
>>>>
>>>>BB is based on interpretation. Nobody observed BB.
>>>
>>>Sigh.
>>>
>>>But the predicted effects have been observed. First by Penzias and
>>>Wilson who won a Nobel Prize, and subsequently the Berkeley/NASA COBE
>>>project and even the Hubble space telescope, which has observed the
>>>early state of the universe going back to less than half a billion
>>>years after it - and confirmed the predictions of our model as far
>>>back as them
>>
>>The assumption is that nothing changes as we go back in time.
>
>Whose assumption? Yours?
The BB theorists.
>>>>>Also flat standing still Earth
>>>>>from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it
>>>>>is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation
>>>>>get more advanced ;)
>>>>
>>>>BB theory makes assumptions that are not valid.
>>>
>>>Such as?
>>
>>That nothing changed as we go back in time.
>
>Bollocks.
>
>Troll much?
Have you ever been wrong?
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
