XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism
From: Barry@saymyname.com
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:48:16 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
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.
>
>Tell that to the ghost of Erwin Schrodinger. Best known for his cat
>thought experiment but a Nobel Prize winning quantum physicist.
>
>>> >>> 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.
>
>It was proposed by Schrodinger and subsequently taken up by other
>astrophysicists and cosmologists, It is hypothetical, and a possible
>answer to whatever the big bang occurred "in" - remember that it was
>the origin of space and time as well as matter and energy (from our
>frame of reference).
>
>So in what frame of reference did it happen? This is just one of the
>many hypothesis.
>
>But unlike some imaginary designer for which there is no evidence
>because there is no way to determine design , nobody insists it
>actually happened that way.
>
>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.
>>> Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'
>>> without any being discovered.
>
>More bollocks.
>
>>What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are
>>there...
>
>Predicted as a consequence of general relativity. Detected by
>gravitational lensing, by objects going out of sight as they orbit
>them and also by gravity waves (2015).
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
Lots of predictions but no direct observations yet.
>> The Big Bang theory seems
>>> to have been accepted as fact without being proven.
>>>
>>
>>Big Bang theory is based on observation. 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 ;)
>
>The big bang was proposed as a consequence of both Einstein's math
>without his fudge factor, and Hubble's observation that the universe
>is expanding, What was it expanding from? Confirmation came with the
>discovery of the cosmic background radiation which had a value pretty
>close to that calculated if it happened, which earned Penzias and
>Wilson a Nobel Prize. It has since had further confirmation that we
>are on the right track, from things like the Berkeley/NASA COBE
>(Cosmic Background Explorer) project, and even observations through
>the Hubble space telescope which didn't go back quite as far but
>fitted the theory as far back as they were able to go..
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
I don't know enough to say the big bang did not happen but I
don't believe it is possible to infer it did from what we now observe.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
