XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism
From: Dean"@gmail.com
On 11/16/2016 6:48 AM, 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
>
>>> 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
>
>> 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..
>
I'm amazed Chris, but you are exactly right!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
