Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,426 Year: 3,683/9,624 Month: 554/974 Week: 167/276 Day: 7/34 Hour: 1/2


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Big Bang and Cosmology ⇒

The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang is NOT Scientific
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 13 of 301 (203178)
04-27-2005 9:54 PM 		Reply to: Message 12 by lost-apathy
04-27-2005 9:37 PM

No evidence for General Relativity?
There is actually NO evidence for this theory scientists have been trying to prove it for over 50 years yet still there has yet to be evidence. People have also been trying to disprove it for many years but still it has not been done. Why is this? Because space and time are not things that can be observed.
The theory of relativity is more like a belief. Like god no one has proved it right or wrong.
​
Since you are making such strong statements about areas of physics it seems fair to presume that you actually know something about the subject.
​
Therefore it is fair to ask you to list the generally accepted experiments that have been done for general realitivity, what the accepted results are and your discussion of why they do not count as support for GR.
​
I'll make it easy for you: You may start with the 1919 measurements of the bending of light. Since that is, certainly by todays standards, flawed you may knock the first one off easily. Then you can continue with the others. Since I'm not as expert like you are I'm only aware of a few of them. It will be interesting to learn more from you.
​
Unfortunately you have, so far, only made bare, naked, unsubstantiated assertions. Far be it for me to say that you have something hanging out in the wind but that is the first impression.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 9:37 PM lost-apathy has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 10:30 PM NosyNed has replied
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 17 of 301 (203190)
04-27-2005 10:34 PM 		Reply to: Message 16 by lost-apathy
04-27-2005 10:30 PM

Re: No evidence for General Relativity?
For one, right now not I AM NOT thinking scientifically, but philisophically.
​
So your statements about there being no support for GR are based on ignorance of the science?
​
That is boring.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 10:30 PM lost-apathy has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by lost-apathy, posted 04-28-2005 6:33 PM NosyNed has not replied
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 42 of 301 (203625)
04-29-2005 10:11 AM 		Reply to: Message 41 by nipok
04-29-2005 9:56 AM

The same predictions exactly?
This message is off-topic. Please do not reply. --Admin
​
It appears that the collesion theory has exactly the same predictions as the big bang theory. Is this the case?
​
This message has been edited by Admin, 04-29-2005 10:33 AM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nipok, posted 04-29-2005 9:56 AM nipok has not replied
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 54 of 301 (203877)
04-30-2005 2:30 AM 		Reply to: Message 53 by lost-apathy
04-30-2005 1:17 AM

knowledge of GR -- Eta?
Yes I am not very knowledgable about relativity, but I doubt anyone here on the forums knows the math to general relativity making us all somewhat ignorant to the topic
​
Well, I don't know that he is a specialist but Eta is an astrophysicist who has some knowledge of GR. He hasn't dropped in while you've been posting. Let's see what he does know when he drops in.
​
( I know I found the math too tough for me )
​
Your link is amusing.
This is a pretty interesting article that dosn't take the side of either for or against relativity. Plus it's from NASA.
​
What the Gravity Probe B is measuring is the changes of spacetime itself. I have the impression that you think this can't be done. I'd suggest reading the links you post very carefully.
​
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-30-2005 02:33 AM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by lost-apathy, posted 04-30-2005 1:17 AM lost-apathy has not replied
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 198 of 301 (299721)
03-31-2006 1:21 AM 		Reply to: Message 197 by Posit
03-31-2006 1:12 AM

Something about neutrinos
First, neutrinos aren't "attached" to electrons. They're just a similar type of particle. The biggest difference is that electrons have an electromagnetic charge, whereas neutrinos do not. This is why neutrinos so rarely interact with other matter, passing right through the Earth most of the time.
​
This is, I think, incorrect. Neutrinos rarely interact because they have no EM charge and also don't react to the weak force. Neutrons have no EM charge too but they penetrate matter only a very small distance.
​
ABE
​
The above is wrong. Neutrinos do feel the weak force. I don't know why they have such a small collesion cross section.
​
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2006 01:29 AM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Posit, posted 03-31-2006 1:12 AM Posit has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Posit, posted 03-31-2006 1:34 AM NosyNed has not replied
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 254 of 301 (300997)
04-04-2006 8:31 PM 		Reply to: Message 252 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
04-04-2006 8:08 PM

not displaying correctly.....
At least I think it is not. I'm on Firefox myself.
​
I think the integrated element should be (x**r something
but the (X**R is above the dX**r. and other parts look scrambled too
This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 04-04-2006 8:08 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Modulous, posted 04-05-2006 1:48 AM NosyNed has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024