Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 3012

In addition, the Big Bang assumes that the coordinates of the universe are expanding. This is ad hoc, because there is no direct evidence that this is the case.

Socratism, Theology Web 12 Comments [5/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
#395907


Physics means you fail

2/1/2008 12:31:55 PM
#395923
Freboy

...and you got your degree in astrophysics were?

2/1/2008 1:16:13 PM
#395981
Philbert McAdamia

Curse that Big Bang. It's making an ASS out of U and ME

2/1/2008 3:22:28 PM
#395990
GigaGuess

Red shift disagrees.

2/1/2008 3:28:20 PM
#396005
JasoNF

Actually, the Big Bang is a pretty stupid theory that has almost never made accurate predictions, and has several times had to add fudge-factors (dark matter, dark energy, inflation), to "retroactively predict" the correct observations.

It is, in a nutshell, creationist cosmology, thought up by a Catholic Priest, and sustained, I suppose, because all the religious people who fled the biological sciences in the early 20th century had to go somewhere (and that people would rather have a wrong answer than none at all).

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp





2/1/2008 3:41:20 PM
#396015
TerriblyAmused

Jason...troll or not, you get this:

We know it's not perfect, that's why scientists haven't thrown in the towel. They're still looking for explanations for the inconsistencies that the Big Bang theory presents.

2/1/2008 3:58:35 PM
#545007


You're an astro-physicist?

6/16/2008 11:33:44 PM
#1262332
Ensign Crusher

Tell that to Milton Hummason and Edwin Hubble.

3/1/2011 5:11:23 PM
#1262338
Anon

>>JasoNF

Actually, the Big Bang is a pretty stupid theory that has almost never made accurate predictions, and has several times had to add fudge-factors (dark matter, dark energy, inflation), to "retroactively predict" the correct observations.
<<

No.

The Big Bang theory was developed following Hubble's measurement of cosmological redshift, and predicted the cosmic microwave background. Thus we had the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Now, the theory certainly has had to be modified to include dark matter and inflation and many other things. That is how theories work. But predicting the cosmic microwave background is no small thing (literally - the CMB is about as big as anything can be).

And, of course, Socratism Fails Physics Forever.

3/1/2011 5:22:00 PM
#1263146
Canadiest

Also @JasoNF

What you call fudging is altering the physics due to new data, it's only complicated shit. Hawkings admits we have no absolute ideal of what the singularity contains (maybe everything: but in what form?) due to the naturally understood physics of today are altered when we start being dense, like 80 galaxies in the size of one sun.

Chaos theory is what-if science, born as a renegade science but gaining ground as it can answer the anomolies we see by changing the basic (average, common) physics.

3/3/2011 1:59:59 PM
#1359384
Ed Hubble

We need to talk.

12/20/2011 5:37:15 PM
#1448896
Ebon

Yes, there is.

9/18/2012 7:15:37 PM
1