Real Science Radio's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang

[alwight]

Opinions are about ALL your Theories are, Just Openions, No evidence at all of Gravity!!!

(( ALL RIGHT!! )) -- Just where is your evisence of (( Gravity ))??? -- Anything, - anything at ALL!!!!

There you go :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/

How are you going to prove that your ~gravity is not caused by the Flowing of Space. -- Explain you Gravity and how it causes an object to be (( "Pulled" )) Down!!! -- There is no such thing as a force that (( Pulls ))!!! - Prove your point wise guy!!

Paul -- 040814

Science isn't about proof it is about what best explains the evidence without any need for making baseless assertions.

 

[Letsargue]

There you go :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/


Science isn't about proof it is about what best explains the evidence without any need for making baseless assertions.

OK!! -- "Science" is not about Proof", -- That's about as good an Excuse as ever!!! - But Science is about the "Facts", The Facts / The -- "FACTS"!!! -- There is Zero Facts describing Gravity, that make Gravity a "Theory", and Nothing else!! - Theories can't go far in designs!!!! -- There is nothing that exist that shows the existance of "Gravity"!! - But I'm the Fool who can tell you in full, - what the real cause of the Falling object is!!! -- But I have NEVER Found any foolish person who Cared in the slightest!!! - So I don't really care. Your world is about to end as you know it anyhow. And good riddance. -- I'll Love IT!!!!

However, If the Geniuses of the World would have just found the "Facts", Your world would Be Very Different Now.

There would be NO stupid plaines as there are now, We would already be in the far distance of Space with Ease.

((( If there are Space Ships from outer Space ))), They have Never used Gravity, but the ( "Flow of Space" ), and all its ways for all things of Knowledge.

Well done EARTH, -you Stupid Fool!!!

Paul -- 040814

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

That is quite the quandary isn't it?

So of the 60 billion or so spiral galaxies, that 15 or so might be as young as 3 billion years old, this you believe is supportive of Young Earth Creationism?

Most of these other "evidences" fall along similar lines of reasoning. Every sort of adjustment and recalculation of previously unknown factors, which still results in a universe many many times older than YECism would like to admit, is evidence against the Big Bang -- despite the fact that most of theses aren't even talking about the Big Bang but of the nebular hypothesis and stellar formation theory. Of course they needn't be bothered to learn about that which they are attempting to refute. Charming indeed.

After complaining about a lack of discussion of evidence, and evidence is discussed, Stripe is nowhere to be found.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

OK!! -- "Science" is not about Proof", -- That's about as good an Excuse as ever!!! - But Science is about the "Facts", The Facts / The -- "FACTS"!!! -- There is Zero Facts describing Gravity, that make Gravity a "Theory", and Nothing else!! - Theories can't go far in designs!!!! -- There is nothing that exist that shows the existance of "Gravity"!! - But I'm the Fool who can tell you in full, - what the real cause of the Falling object is!!! -- But I have NEVER Found any foolish person who Cared in the slightest!!! - So I don't really care. Your world is about to end as you know it anyhow. And good riddance. -- I'll Love IT!!!!

However, If the Geniuses of the World would have just found the "Facts", Your world would Be Very Different Now.

There would be NO stupid plaines as there are now, We would already be in the far distance of Space with Ease.

((( If there are Space Ships from outer Space ))), They have Never used Gravity, but the ( "Flow of Space" ), and all its ways for all things of Knowledge.

Well done EARTH, -you Stupid Fool!!!

Paul -- 040814

:kookoo:

 

[6days]

After complaining about a lack of discussion of evidence, and evidence is discussed, Stripe is nowhere to be found.

I think he is waiting for you to answer a question posed to you a few pages back. Why are there no population 3 stars?
Perhaps there aren't any?
Missing population 3 stars...Just one of many evidences of our young universe.

 

[gcthomas]

I think he is waiting for you to answer a question posed to you a few pages back. Why are there no population 3 stars?
Perhaps there aren't any?
Missing population 3 stars...Just one of many evidences of our young universe.

If you were to look at the literature on Pop III stars on Arxiv you will see what the actual state of knowledge is.

First, current telescopes are not powerful enough to spot individual pop III stars in high redshift galaxies given the most likely model of their formation and behavior. Only the more extreme and unlikely values have been ruled out by the current lack of direct observations.

Second, the presence of Pop III stars is not part of the big bang cosmology, but is an expectation from astrophysics, which is a completely different field. If future infra red telescopes fail to find the stars then astrophysics will need some refinement and some new theories, but it doesn't impact on cosmology.

If you haven't followed my comment so far, try this: pop III stars are not a requirement of the big bang cosmology, and in any case the current absence of evidence is not evidence of their absence, given the small size of current telescopes.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I think he is waiting for you to answer a question posed to you a few pages back. Why are there no population 3 stars?
Perhaps there aren't any?
Missing population 3 stars...Just one of many evidences of our young universe.

I don't recall Stripe saying anything about pop III stars. I had to go back through the entire thread to see if I missed something, but I am still unable to find any such question by Stripe.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Collins says to imagine a measuring tape divided into one inch increments stretched a cross the entire visible university. There would be billions upon billions upon billions of increments representing the range of possible gravitation

This doesn't really answer my question, unless you're asserting that the total range is whatever Collins can imagine.

?

Are you going to answer anytime soon?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

The answer is: no. Apparently.