Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   what is the big bang and how do i understand it?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 122 (238088)
08-28-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Son Goku
08-28-2005 2:46 PM


Re: time shadows, empirical g forces, etc.
Einstein's G is a bilinear form and Newton's small g is an acceleration,
okay I was using g to differentiate GEinstein from GNewton rather than g = (GNewton)(MEarth)
It's gravity.
To be honest it isn't really that sinister, one day Kaluza just went "Hey, I wonder what happens if I add one more space dimension to Einstein's Field equation".
The question is whether the math is being conciously used to model what we know about the universe, or are people making up "pretty" math equations and "elegant" solutions and getting away from the reason for the model in the first place.
Math can be made to do all kinds of things: that doesn't mean that the models are real.
People will explore the maths to see if there is more to the equations than what is initially apparent, it's just human curiosity.
But it is speculation and not science. Until there is evidence to validate predicted results.
Welcome to the board.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Son Goku, posted 08-28-2005 2:46 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Son Goku, posted 08-29-2005 5:57 PM RAZD has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 122 (238365)
08-29-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
08-28-2005 7:19 PM


Re: time shadows, empirical g forces, etc.
quote:
okay I was using g to differentiate GEinstein from GNewton rather than g = (GNewton)(MEarth)
Still Newton's big G is a constant and Einstein's is a bilinear form.
They can't really be compared.
quote:
The question is whether the math is being conciously used to model what we know about the universe, or are people making up "pretty" math equations and "elegant" solutions and getting away from the reason for the model in the first place.
But it is speculation and not science. Until there is evidence to validate predicted results.
There will always be a point in time when a mathematical construct has not been validated.
Until then they are all just speculation/a hypothesis, it'd be very difficult to come up with a model that never exists in the speculative stage.
Kulaza's model unifies Gravity and Electromagnetism at the cost of an extra dimension.
There has been no evidence of this extra dimension so Kaluza's idea is still an unproven hypothesis, but back in the 1920's it was reasonable for him to get excited about it and present it to others.
We can't restrict our models to what can be proven in the forseeable future.
quote:
Math can be made to do all kinds of things: that doesn't mean that the models are real.
Pure Mathematics can be made to do almost anything, however mathematical physics is far more restrictive and playing around with the maths inside a tested construct allows you to sweat out details that may not have been immediately apparent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 7:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 9:01 PM Son Goku has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 122 (238409)
08-29-2005 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Son Goku
08-29-2005 5:57 PM


Re: time shadows, empirical g forces, etc.
Son Goku writes:
Still Newton's big G is a constant and Einstein's is a bilinear form.
They can't really be compared.
Funny, that is not the impression I get from the wikipedia article that says:
General relativity - Wikipedia
The Einstein field equation reduces to Newton's law of gravity in the limiting cases of a weak gravitational field and slow speed relative to the speed of light. In fact, the constant, {8(pi)G/c4}, appearing in the EFE is determined by making these two approximations.
(bold red mine for emPHAsis)
One may give birth to the other and grow up quite different, but it still has the belly-button ....
There will always be a point in time when a mathematical construct has not been validated.
I have no problem with this. This is the hypothesis stage.
however mathematical physics is far more restrictive and playing around with the maths inside a tested construct allows you to sweat out details that may not have been immediately apparent.
My problem is when more time is spent playing with the model than on what the model is supposed to represent, to the point of forgetting the original purpose.
And if you never get out of the hypothesis stage then you never get to the predictions, falsification tests, refinements and observations that validate the concept as a theory.
It's not that I want to rule out the happy moments, I just don't think they should be viewed as the {rule\goal}.
k?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Son Goku, posted 08-29-2005 5:57 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by cavediver, posted 08-30-2005 8:26 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 65 by Son Goku, posted 08-30-2005 3:08 PM RAZD has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 64 of 122 (238534)
08-30-2005 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
08-29-2005 9:01 PM


Re: time shadows, empirical g forces, etc.
Busy as hell... so quickly
There's confusion over to which G you're both referring. Unhelpfully, there are three "g"s in the Einstein Equation! G_ab is the Einstein Tensor, g_ab is the metric tensor, and G (on the rhs of the equation) is Newton's Garvitational Constant. SG is referring to G_ab and RAZD is only referring to G, as it appears both in F=GMm/r^2 and G_ab=8piG/c^2T_ab.
I wil come back to the rest, but I will just add here that at the level of quantum gravity there is confusion over what is reality and what is model. Outside of this arena it is very easy to think of reality as being built up of smaller bits of reality. In quantum gravity we seem to run out of reality and all we seem to be left with is the mathmatics. Check out the thread "God and Mathematics" in the coffee shop for my thoughts. I still must get back to that thread sometime as I left it hanging in the middle of my A-level exam marking.
In terms of predictions and falsification tests, that's easy. Whatever we theorise must reduce to observed reality in a low energy limit. If it doesn't, it's falsified. Observations at the high-energy limit are very difficult: either technologically infeasible or potentially devastating to the universe And I'm not kidding!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 9:01 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 122 (238632)
08-30-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
08-29-2005 9:01 PM


Re: time shadows, empirical g forces, etc.
quote:
Funny, that is not the impression I get from the wikipedia article that says:
General relativity - Wikipedia
Okay the G you are discussing is Newton's G and only Newton's G, even though it makes an apparence in the Einstein Field Equation.
The Einstein field equation reduces to Newton's law of gravity in the limiting cases of a weak gravitational field and slow speed relative to the speed of light. In fact, the constant, {8(pi)G/c4}, appearing in the EFE is determined by making these two approximations.
When Einstein originally formulated the Field Equation he got
G(u,v) = k T(u,v).
Unfortunatly he had no way of figuring out what that constant 'k' would be in our unit system.
However by examining the the Field Equation in the weak field and slow velocity limit he was able to determine the value of k, which is 8(Pi)G/c4.
So although the Field Equation contains G it is still Newton's G.
There is no Einstein G in this sense.
quote:
My problem is when more time is spent playing with the model than on what the model is supposed to represent, to the point of forgetting the original purpose.
And if you never get out of the hypothesis stage then you never get to the predictions, falsification tests, refinements and observations that validate the concept as a theory.
It's not that I want to rule out the happy moments, I just don't think they should be viewed as the {rule\goal}.
That makes perfect sense, I do understand that sometimes people play with the maths without any regard to the physical world.
However very few of us actually play around with the stuff in that sense.
There is maybe one or two papers like that a year in my area.
Most of what is done in Relativity is numerical analysis of what sort of orbits, e.t.c. it predicts in different kinds of solar systems and Gravitational Wave research.
It is still important to have these kind of papers though, they give us a potential glimpse of what lies ahead.
quote:
In quantum gravity we seem to run out of reality and all we seem to be left with is the mathmatics.
I particularly find that in Loop Quantum Gravity.
quote:
Observations at the high-energy limit are very difficult: either technologically infeasible or potentially devastating to the universe And I'm not kidding
For anybody wondering, the core of the Sun would be a boring lazy place compared with the high energy limit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 9:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by cavediver, posted 08-30-2005 6:33 PM Son Goku has not replied
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2005 11:13 PM Son Goku has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 66 of 122 (238657)
08-30-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Son Goku
08-30-2005 3:08 PM


Re: time shadows, empirical g forces, etc.
For anybody wondering, the core of the Sun would be a boring lazy place compared with the high energy limit.
Quite When our accelerators start producing energies higher than the most energetic cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts... worry!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Son Goku, posted 08-30-2005 3:08 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 122 (238728)
08-30-2005 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Son Goku
08-30-2005 3:08 PM


The Cosmic Fudge Factory
Son Goku writes:
When Einstein originally formulated the Field Equation he got
G(u,v) = k T(u,v).
Unfortunatly he had no way of figuring out what that constant 'k' would be in our unit system.
The original point was that the theories of gravity were empirical equations based on best fit to the observations and using the currently known relationships.
Whether you call it {k} or {G} or {the cosmic fudge factor} the result is still that the {constant} is derived from an empirical basis and thus does not rule out any {currently unknown} relationships.
Based on this fact, it is unreasonable (imho) to then say we must have {dark stuffs} when they are just mathematical inventions to make the observations fit the calculations. Rather one should be looking for {currently unknown} mechanisms.
The empirical approach would be to look at the difference and develop resonable empirical formulas that account for it based on matching {formula} to observations and current knowledge of the universe, and then to look for mechanims that would cause such formula behavior and then to test for their existence.
The theoretical approach would be to derive the whole formula, coefficients and all, from first principals: there should be no need in this case to find out what {k} or {G} or {the cosmic fudge factor} value is, it should be derived. We see this in the other {forces}.
It seems to me that we have stopped half-way through one, and then embarked on the other approach, so that what we have is a muddle tripping over itself.
That makes perfect sense, I do understand that sometimes people play with the maths without any regard to the physical world.
However very few of us actually play around with the stuff in that sense.
We can agree on the fact that it happens and disagree on the degree to which it happens.
I am (mostly) giving my impression as an outside observer and not a "player"
The rest seems to be response to cavediver ... we can wait for his schedule to allow ...
{{is he ready yet, huh? huh? is he? huh?}}

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Son Goku, posted 08-30-2005 3:08 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Son Goku, posted 08-31-2005 3:29 PM RAZD has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 122 (239078)
08-31-2005 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
08-30-2005 11:13 PM


Re: The Cosmic Fudge Factory
quote:
The theoretical approach would be to derive the whole formula, coefficients and all, from first principals: there should be no need in this case to find out what {k} or {G} or {the cosmic fudge factor} value is, it should be derived. We see this in the other {forces}.
It seems to me that we have stopped half-way through one, and then embarked on the other approach, so that what we have is a muddle tripping over itself.
First "constants" like G or Epsilon zero, only appear in equations because of our measuring system.
Basically they exist because the abstract reasoning cannot conclude specifics about the measurement system to be used.
Take for example Newton's Equation:
F = G (m1*m2)/r2
The real relation is:
F = (m1*m2)/r2
G makes an appearance simply because the equation can't assume we have a perfectly matched measurement system.
In the above case our force unit is miniscule compared with the units encompassed by the left hand side and so needs an adjusting factor.
Also Einstein didn't use any empirical methods in the derivation of the Field Equation, he got the constant 'k' by reducing the Field Equation to the Newtonian Limit and comparing it with the Newtonian Field equation.
From this he found that the only value of 'k' that allows for a reduction to Newtonian theory was the one quoted above.
quote:
Based on this fact, it is unreasonable (imho) to then say we must have {dark stuffs} when they are just mathematical inventions to make the observations fit the calculations. Rather one should be looking for {currently unknown} mechanisms.
The Field Equations in its completely extended form is:
The lambda sign is the cosmological constant.
Normally this is assumed to zero.
Now, Dark energy is postulated because the Field Equation goes from lambda equals zero, into regions where lambda does not equal zero on the Universal scale.
Dark Energy is simply a catch-all phrase for whatever gives rise to non-zero values of lambda.
The Dark stuff isn't postulated to make observation fit theory, instead General Relativity already allows the observations, but we have no theory of what is causing lambda to be greater than zero.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2005 11:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2005 7:54 PM Son Goku has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 122 (239221)
08-31-2005 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Son Goku
08-31-2005 3:29 PM


Re: The Cosmic Fudge Factory and Empirical Candy
Son Goku writes:
Now, Dark energy is postulated because the Field Equation goes from lambda equals zero, into regions where lambda does not equal zero on the Universal scale.
Dark Energy is simply a catch-all phrase for whatever gives rise to non-zero values of lambda.
The Dark stuff isn't postulated to make observation fit theory, instead General Relativity already allows the observations, but we have no theory of what is causing lambda to be greater than zero.
In other words, adding a fudging factory to the universe so the observations (fudged) match the theory.
I'm going to be intentionally hard-nosed and obdurate here:
Take for example Newton's Equation:
F = G (m1*m2)/r2
The real relation is:
F = (m1*m2)/r2
The real inter-relationships, based on observations are that:
F {is propotional to} m1 and
F {is propotional to} m2 and
F {is propotional to} 1/d2
and when we combine these we get
F {is propotional to} (m1)x(m2)/d2
so we set
F = (K)x(m1)x(m2)/d2 + C
and then solve for K and C based on observations and test the derived values against other observations.
We don't need any special unit dependency because the empirical solution includes it automatically.
Any formula that matches {theoretical mathematical} behavior to {actual observation} by the use of coefficients is an empirical formula:
empirical adj.
1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.
The theories of Einstein are not much different. Except for being a notch up on explaining time problems and a whole lot more cumbersome with the maths .
The problem is when a theory no longer matches {new} observations, you can either change the theory or change the observations by adding stuffs that aren't necessarily there and for which there is no other evidence.
And when the stuff you have to add becomes more than the stuff you started with, bells whistles alarums and flashing lights ought to go off.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Son Goku, posted 08-31-2005 3:29 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by cavediver, posted 09-01-2005 3:37 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 71 by Son Goku, posted 09-01-2005 7:04 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 74 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2005 5:17 AM RAZD has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 70 of 122 (239384)
09-01-2005 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
08-31-2005 7:54 PM


Re: The Cosmic Fudge Factory and Empirical Candy
I'm going to be intentionally hard-nosed and obdurate here:
What? You mean you don't think you've been like this already...??? Oh dear...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2005 7:54 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 122 (239759)
09-01-2005 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
08-31-2005 7:54 PM


Re: The Cosmic Fudge Factory and Empirical Candy
quote:
In other words, adding a fudging factory to the universe so the observations (fudged) match the theory.
No, lambda exists as a natural component of the Einstein Field Equation.
Simply in most space times of local interest the conditions are such that it is zero.
On a global scale they are such that it is not zero, with the simplest assumption being that there is "dark matter" that only comes into play when the volume being considered is cosmological.
quote:
We don't need any special unit dependency because the empirical solution includes it automatically.
Oh yes you do. Unless you from a society whose standard units correspond exactly with the Planck units.
quote:
The problem is when a theory no longer matches {new} observations, you can either change the theory or change the observations by adding stuffs that aren't necessarily there and for which there is no other evidence.
General Relativity still does match the observations, the only problem is explaining the discrepancy between the local "lambda equals zero" behaviour and the "lambda does not equal zero" global behaviour.
quote:
The theories of Einstein are not much different. Except for being a notch up on explaining time problems and a whole lot more cumbersome with the maths .
They're a huge notch up on explaining invariance under accelerative transformations and in gravitational conditions.
This message has been edited by Son Goku, 09-14-2005 03:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2005 7:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 7:46 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 122 (239779)
09-01-2005 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Son Goku
09-01-2005 7:04 PM


Re: The Cosmic Fudge Factory and Empirical Candy
General Relativity still does match the observations, the only problem is explaining the discrepancy between the local "lambda equals zero" behaviour and the "lambda does not equal zero" global behaviour.
Then fix the theory?
This is the main point of my argument. We can explain everything but
{this}
But, rather than look at what is wrong with the theory we speculate
{THIS!}

to make the equations in the theory end up with the observed result?
Medievel astrologers were quite content to keep adding epicycles to their circular thinking ....

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Son Goku, posted 09-01-2005 7:04 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2005 5:06 AM RAZD has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 73 of 122 (239865)
09-02-2005 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
09-01-2005 7:46 PM


Re: The Cosmic Fudge Factory and Empirical Candy
I promise I will get round to my HUGE reply to all of this, but for now...
Then fix the theory?
No one is saying that GR is absolutely correct. Everyone accepts that GR will be superceded by a higher level theory, but in most cases this will not change the gross nature of GR.
What do you think I was trying to do for all those years as a mathematican/theorectical physicist? Hanging with my friends, saying how great GR is? Forgive me RAZD, but I feel like an evolutionary biologist sparring with a creationist
In this field, no stone is left unturned. The sheer number of papers pursuing every conceivable modification or alternative to GR is amazing... it started ninety years ago, and continues unabated to this day. To suggest that us comsologists and theo/math physicists are blinded by our devotion to GR is verging on insulting... it's not our fault that nothing has come close to replacing GR. But it's not that surprising when you understand the concepts. Hmmm, this is EXACTLY like sparring with a creationist
You seem to think that cosmologists have postulated two large epicycles -lambda and CDM - and left it there. Please understand that no-one is happy with this situation. The task is on to explain why we have a lambda (not that a constant lambda needs explaining from the POV of GR) and what is CDM... this is major research. At the same time, there is major research into models that produce the same effects without lambda and CDM... this is where ekpyrosis comes from.
I think I need to devote an entire topic to teaching GR and demolishing distorted views bred by the popular "science" press.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 7:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2005 9:35 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 74 of 122 (239869)
09-02-2005 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
08-31-2005 7:54 PM


Re: The Cosmic Fudge Factory and Empirical Candy
The theories of Einstein are not much different. Except for being a notch up on explaining time problems and a whole lot more cumbersome with the maths
Yes, true, in the same way that evolution is just a notch up from Genesis 1 on explaining diversity of species, and so much more cumbersome with the understanding.
I'll put this with my collection of Tal's eloquent evolution critiques

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2005 7:54 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 75 of 122 (240314)
09-03-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by cavediver
09-02-2005 5:06 AM


Re: The Cosmic Fudge Factory and Empirical Candy
No one is saying that GR is absolutely correct. Everyone accepts that GR will be superceded by a higher level theory
I'm aware of this
but in most cases this will not change the gross nature of GR.
Why assume this? Perhaps GR will be like Newtonian Physics: close enough in controlled conditions to use for workable solution, or perhaps it will be replaced entirely if the new theory is much easier to use.
What do you think I was trying to do for all those years as a mathematican/theorectical physicist? ... Forgive me RAZD, but I feel like an evolutionary biologist sparring with a creationist
heh, and I also get that feeling, from being tag-teamed by Son Goku and you, both well above my level of understanding and knowledge ... do I see {Sylas\others} hovering in the wings as well? ()
Please understand that no-one is happy with this situation. The task is on to explain why we have a lambda (not that a constant lambda needs explaining from the POV of GR) and what is CDM... this is major research. At the same time, there is major research into models that produce the same effects without lambda and CDM... this is where ekpyrosis comes from.
I am not trying to be difficult, just to make a point: that when it comes down to it "we don't know" is the answer.
Dark Stuffs may exist, but there is no corroborating evidence (to date) and all behavior that can be modeled {{as if dark stuffs were true}} can also be modeled in other ways (such as the universal constant)
I personally am much more interested in seeing if there is any theoretical basis for another flavor of acceleration. Perhaps one that varies,
from pioneer anomaly, near solar system,
ap = 8 x 10^-8 m/sec^2
to cosmic anomaly, at galactic distances,
ao = 1.2 x 10^-10 m/sec^2
than I am in speculating the existence of {unknown stuff, we'll call it dark because we can't see it anywhere} and which ends up being over 90% of the universe ...
... which automatically leads (imho) to the corollaries that
(a) we don't know jack about the universe
(b) we don't know jack about the way common {matter\energy}, behave because what we have been studying all this time is the uncommon stuff.
Try any other field with a theory that only explains (what is it 4% total?) of the known behavior, but which then claims to be the best theory ....
Occams razor tells me that when {the adjustment to the data} gets to be more than {the data} to make the theory work, that the theory is wrong.
To me this is one of the great unknowns, and this shouldn't be glazed over by any pretending that dark stuffs is really the answer.
I think I need to devote an entire topic to teaching GR and demolishing distorted views bred by the popular "science" press.
That would be of great interest to many here, but you may have to spend your time talking to yourself if no one asks questions (I'll be glad to help ), I think Sylas started something like this line a while back.
Of course, one of the worst "popular" science misrepresentations is that {WMAP\etc} proves the existence of the dark stuffs ...
Enjoy.
{{{retreats to hard-headed creationist turtle shell bunker, pulls in head ... gets out a klondike bar and prepares to enjoy the show}}}

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2005 5:06 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Son Goku, posted 09-05-2005 12:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024