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

Quote# 86431

So how does cosmic expansion, background radiation, and nucleosynthesis prove that there was a big bang? It proves nothing. I theorize that reverse gravity is pushing the galaxies apart, while at the same time maintaining normal gravitational effects. You can't disprove it either, and it is just as credible as any other theory out there.

Background radiation? There should be that, but it doesn't prove the big bang. Just because the radiation lessens the further out the universe goes doesn't prove there was a big bang.
In fact, it proves that my theory of reverse gravity is more likely due to the almost uniform distribution of the radiation.

Nucleosynthesis? It only lasted for seventeen minutes? Ok, who timed that, and what kind of watch did they use?

Not trying to be an a** about this, but if you read the explanations on these things the usual comment is "scientists believe". That simply means they don't know, but have to put something out there. Faith is on both sides.

dadman, HardOCP 56 Comments [3/14/2012 3:57:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 63
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3


That's because "scientists believe" is a damn sight easier for laymen to grasp than the in depth mathematics which actually point to this being the most likely history of the universe.

If you really feel like doing the research, though, read the papers themselves, and of you can keep up, you'll see why it isn't a belief in the same way goddidit is. Come to think of it, the big bang and goddidit aren't even mutually exclusive. At least pick a target that actually seems to disprove your own case.

Having just read a few other samples of your babbling, I'm utterly amazed that you could have a degree in this subject and have never been exposed to literature deeper than "scientists believe". Hell, I have, and I am a layman. In fact, I'm increasingly doubtful that you even live near a university, let alone ever have set foot in one. If you have, I'd like to know which one so I never make the mistake of sending my kids there.

3/14/2012 4:12:20 AM



When scientists say they "believe" something, they mean that the current understanding of physics, chemistry, etc. brings them to such-and-such conclusion. It's just quicker to say that they believe it. Sadly, that's lost on far too many people.

3/14/2012 4:13:15 AM

Matante

You know, I can math, and so can many people who read you. So write down your theory, I want to see how your reverse gravity interacts with the other forces, and how it matches observed phenomena.
If you didn't do that, sorry, what you have is an idea, not a theory, and ideas are only worth the amount of work you put into them.

3/14/2012 4:20:12 AM

Filin De Blanc

"Reverse gravity"?

3/14/2012 4:28:20 AM

Bollox

Perverse insanity, morelike.

3/14/2012 4:29:15 AM



What you have claimed is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and therefore it can be safely ignored. The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim, so it is not up to others to prove you wrong; if you wish for your hypothesis to have any merit at all, you must provide evidence suggesting its truth. Until then, it is not even close to being considered as credible as current scientific theories.

Additionally, your statement regarding background radiation being affected by "reverse-gravity" admittedly baffles me: I really would love to understand how this "reverse-gravity" could cause near-uniform distribution of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Of course, given that you have yet to prove the existence of this "reverse-gravity", the point is moot.

3/14/2012 4:34:36 AM

Higgs Boson

We really need to start "Post-Modernists Say the Darndest Things"

3/14/2012 5:14:01 AM

David B.

"Background radiation? There should be that, but it doesn't prove the big bang."

Not in itself, no. But that background radiation and its characteristics were predicted by physicists using the big bang model. You had to wait for them to derive and discover it before you could explain it.

From the early observations that the galaxies were receding at a rate proportional to their distance (local group aside), the big bang model has consistently explained, often predicted, new discoveries.

Any fool can "add more epicycles" to a model to explain what has been discovered, but only real insight into how systems actually (apparently) work allows us to look for discoveries to confirm our understanding.

Your "reverse gravity" is a perfect example of "cargo-cult" science. Simply apeing the words and style of scientists doesn't make what you are doing science any more than putting on a tutu makes you a ballerina.

3/14/2012 5:15:41 AM

Mister Spak

"Not trying to be an a** about this,"

But succeeding magnificently.

3/14/2012 5:26:07 AM

Table Rock

I theorize that reverse gravity is pushing the galaxies apart, while at the same time maintaining normal gravitational effects. You can't disprove it either, and it is just as credible as any other theory out there.

You don't disprove theories. You prove them by providing supporting evidence. The Big Bang theory has supporting evidence. Where's yours?

Nucleosynthesis? It only lasted for seventeen minutes? Ok, who timed that, and what kind of watch did they use?

You don't need a watch to time durations. For example: if I'm in a car going 50 mph, how long until I have traveled 100 miles? 2 hours. See, I didn't even need a stop watch. Scientists use a similar approach, calculating something moving towards a goal, but the math is far more complex than either of us can understand. But just because we can't undestand it, doesn't prove it wrong.

Not trying to be an a** about this
Yes you are. you feel that we should believe your unsupported theories over those put for by SCIENTISTS - millions of people who do this for a living and actually have evidence for their theories.

but if you read the explanations on these things the usual comment is "scientists believe". That simply means they don't know, but have to put something out there. Faith is on both sides.

You're equivocating with the term "believe". When scientists use it, it means, "This is our best answer for what occurs based on the evidence we have." It does not mean, "We are accepting this as true without any evidence whatsoever."

3/14/2012 5:30:30 AM

anevilmeme

More proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

1 Reverse gravity? A fundie misunderstanding of dark energy? Here's an important safety tip Egon, Conservapedia isn't the best source for science reporting out there, you do have other options.

2 You have no understanding whatsoever what a theory is. By definition theories are disprovable, or as grown ups would say falsifiable.

3 Nucleosynthesis, its a big important sounding word, no doubt that's why you used it. However, like all words it has a meaning, one that in this case escaped you. As for nucleosynthesis only lasting 17 miniutes get out of your mom's basement and look at that big bright thing in the sky. Please don't stare at it as it will damage your eyes.

4 Scientists don't "believe in" any theory, they accept it based on the evidence and nothing else.

5 As far as not being an a**, epic fail.

3/14/2012 5:38:08 AM

Doubting Thomas

"I just pulled a hypothesis out of my ass and you can't disprove it" is not valid scientific proof. If you can prove this "reverse gravity" idea of yours, you'd win a Nobel prize.

I believe you when you say you're not trying to be an ass. Some things just come naturally.

3/14/2012 5:45:02 AM

Tolpuddle Martyr

I can "prove" that one plus one equals two, that's because closed systems like arithmetic deal in proofs. Science deals in evidence, not the same thing!

Now, who has more evidence? The scientists who have spent decades interpreting the available evidence to refine and develop their theories or you who have just made up some random stuff about "reverse gravity" on the spot?

3/14/2012 5:56:30 AM



You can't disprove it either, and it is just as credible as any other theory out there.

Peanut butter. You can't disprove it either!

3/14/2012 6:09:04 AM

dionysus

I theorize that reverse gravity is pushing the galaxies apart, while at the same time maintaining normal gravitational effects. You can't disprove it either

That's not how science works. You don't accept something just because it can't be disproven, otherwise we'd consider bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster real. No, you have to have actual evidence and your model has to make predictions that validate it. The Big Bang model predicted the existence of background radiation, and background radiation was what we found. Do something like that with your "reverse gravity" idea and science will consider it.

3/14/2012 6:24:05 AM

Hatless

ahem--the proper term is not "reverse gravity", it is "backtraced gravity". I hate to see you goof.

3/14/2012 6:26:30 AM

Orion

You realise of course that when most people say they "believe" something in pretty much every other situation besides talking about religion they literally mean "Based on the evidence I'm currently aware of..." not "it's this cos I really wish it is".

When I say I believe Barack Obama will win the next election, that is based on my reading of the evidence available, not an irrational faith in the man. When I say I believe what Scientists tell me about stuff that's far too complicated for it to be worth me spending the time to understand in depth, I say that because Scientists have yet to steer me wrong.

3/14/2012 6:35:53 AM

Detrs

No, it's because English has been shaped to a large degree by Christianity (look how hard it is to render Buddhist terms in comprehensible translation).

We have no other word to use, and jerks like you equivocate.

3/14/2012 6:44:13 AM

John

it is just as credible as any other theory out there

When you have earned a PhD in astrophysics and have actually work out the mathematics and it agrees with all the observations, then it will be credible. In science, a theory isn't some speculation pulled out of your butt (as it is in ordinary speech) - it's something that explains the available data.

3/14/2012 7:26:39 AM

Osiris

No we can't disprove your reverse gravity theory because you haven't brought any evidence beyond your own declaration that it's there. So frankly it's not that we can't disprove it, it's that your "theory" is barely an hypothesis and isn't worth our time.

3/14/2012 8:14:32 AM

David B.

"You can't disprove it either, and it is just as credible as any other theory out there."

Clearly not, since you've just admitted it fails one of the most basic tenets of science, falsifiability.

3/14/2012 8:15:22 AM

Anon-e-moose

"and it is just as credible as any other theory out there."

'HardOCP', eh...?

(*Leg armour splits apart; gun bracket emerges from leg, removes and aims verbal Auto-9 at de(a)dman*)

And how does the fact that there are no talking snakes today explain Creationism?

Or even that there are no four-legged insects? Unless they... somehow evolved to have six legs, in a period after they were just 'poofed' into being...?!

Your move, creep. [/"RoboCop"]

[/Fridge Logic] [/smartarse]

Moral: 'beliefs' =/= Evidence. Faith =/= Facts. Four words: Kitzmiller versus Dover, bitches.

Somewhere there is a Crime Against Reality happening. Thank you for your co-operation. Goodnight.

3/14/2012 8:16:57 AM

Flah

Goodness, Dadman's idea about "reverse gravity" sounds very similar to the recently discovered Dark Energy. It's almost as though astrophysicists had already beaten him to the punch.

As for nucleosynthesis, that's sort of putting the cart before the horse. The idea came about as a logical result of the Big Bang Theory. And, without that, I would wonder what Dadman's alternate hypothesis would be for the creation of all the matter that we see.

3/14/2012 8:36:56 AM

Dr. Razark

"You can't disprove it either, and it is just as credible as any other theory out there."

But... but... but...

That's not how science works!

3/14/2012 8:50:51 AM

aaa

Man, you are projecting pretty damn hard.

3/14/2012 9:02:38 AM
1 2 3