Dark Matter...WTH?

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will "challenge my post" or provide emprical physical evidence that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination?&nbsp; You realize there is a difference between the two, and the onus of responsibility falls to you to demonstrate that inflation exists in nature, correct?You don't get to "demand" anything of the "skeptic" in the halls of science.&nbsp; You're the one that must provide factual evidence that inflation is a real, tangible, non fictional entity.&nbsp; I cannot "disprove" anything upon "demand".How does it fall to me to provide you with mathematical models to disprove inflation?&nbsp; You have the scientific method standing on it's head.&nbsp; I'm simply fulfilling the role of pure skeptic.&nbsp; I see no empicical evidence that inflation exists, that gravity "predicts" a "bang" or any of the claims you have made.Did you recently get promoted to moderator status, or is this just your little ego running amuck?&nbsp; When did you get to decide *how* I respond to your points?&nbsp; Hoy.I tend to disect *ideas* by the way.&nbsp; Excuse me?&nbsp; I have no "agenda" in this thread other than my original intent to point out the distinction between "MACHO" types of "dark matter" and the "new and improved", non-baryonic brands of DM that have been showing up lately and being credited with all sorts of unsubstanciated attributes.Your comment about General Relativity "predicting" a bang was simply an obvious mistatement of fact on your part.&nbsp; Gravity *might* be used to "predict" a singularity, but it could not be use to "predict" a "bang".&nbsp; You're the one getting all huffy and puffy about it. I take it you don't like "critics"?&nbsp; "Permanently"?&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; Did you have a virtual lynching in mind or what?&nbsp; If I disagree with anything you might say in future, I'm just supposed to "shut up" or else?You're already moving the goalposts I see.&nbsp; I said GR does not "predict' a bang.&nbsp; "Cosmological models" can do anything, including overcoming the force of gravity with all sorts of magical forces. &nbsp; LOL!&nbsp; Is that all?&nbsp; You best explain how your "smaller than a breadbox" lump of matter is going anywhere, particularly *outside* of the event horizon that must suround it.&nbsp; Please refrain from "making up" ad hoc forces that cannot be emrpically demonstrated in a lab, including but not limited to "dark" things, "invisible" things, "magic" things, or things that are shy around a laboratory experiment.Gravity exists on Earth.&nbsp; it's doesn't predict the Earth will go "bang".&nbsp;&nbsp; At best case you might make the arguement that gravity predicts contraction of matter to a "singularity".&nbsp; You could never account for a "bang" from the gravity well that was created by the concentration of all that mass to a single location.I am not required to 'refute' Lambda theories.&nbsp; You are required to "explain" mainstream theories just like you require I explain the theories I put my faith in.&nbsp; The fact you can slap math to magical forces that defy the laws of nature as we know them is not "evidence" that your theory is correct.&nbsp; No known vector or scalar field in nature will retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; Inflation is literally a "supernatural" construct and not a single consumer product is based upon it's existence.&nbsp; More importantly it's "lab shy".&nbsp; It won't show up in any controlled laboratory experiment.&nbsp; Emprical science is based upon emprical testing in controlled emprical experiments.&nbsp; These experiments have "control mechanisms" that allow us to change the parameters of the experiment to be sure that we have correctly "interpreted" the information. &nbsp;None of the typical methods of science can be applied to inflation, or "dark energy".&nbsp; Without these things you could never hope to get explain a "bang" from a concentration of matter. &nbsp; The force of gravity is going to pull things together, not make them go "bang".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So, you refuse to provide scientific support for your assertions.&nbsp; That is as expected.</p><p>I expect the mods to follow through with their earlier statements regarding a requirement for the posters of pseudoscience to defend their position with solid science.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will "challenge my post" or provide emprical physical evidence that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination?&nbsp; You realize there is a difference between the two, and the onus of responsibility falls to you to demonstrate that inflation exists in nature, correct?You don't get to "demand" anything of the "skeptic" in the halls of science.&nbsp; You're the one that must provide factual evidence that inflation is a real, tangible, non fictional entity.&nbsp; I cannot "disprove" anything upon "demand".How does it fall to me to provide you with mathematical models to disprove inflation?&nbsp; You have the scientific method standing on it's head.&nbsp; I'm simply fulfilling the role of pure skeptic.&nbsp; I see no empicical evidence that inflation exists, that gravity "predicts" a "bang" or any of the claims you have made.Did you recently get promoted to moderator status, or is this just your little ego running amuck?&nbsp; When did you get to decide *how* I respond to your points?&nbsp; Hoy.I tend to disect *ideas* by the way.&nbsp; Excuse me?&nbsp; I have no "agenda" in this thread other than my original intent to point out the distinction between "MACHO" types of "dark matter" and the "new and improved", non-baryonic brands of DM that have been showing up lately and being credited with all sorts of unsubstanciated attributes.Your comment about General Relativity "predicting" a bang was simply an obvious mistatement of fact on your part.&nbsp; Gravity *might* be used to "predict" a singularity, but it could not be use to "predict" a "bang".&nbsp; You're the one getting all huffy and puffy about it. I take it you don't like "critics"?&nbsp; "Permanently"?&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; Did you have a virtual lynching in mind or what?&nbsp; If I disagree with anything you might say in future, I'm just supposed to "shut up" or else?You're already moving the goalposts I see.&nbsp; I said GR does not "predict' a bang.&nbsp; "Cosmological models" can do anything, including overcoming the force of gravity with all sorts of magical forces. &nbsp; LOL!&nbsp; Is that all?&nbsp; You best explain how your "smaller than a breadbox" lump of matter is going anywhere, particularly *outside* of the event horizon that must suround it.&nbsp; Please refrain from "making up" ad hoc forces that cannot be emrpically demonstrated in a lab, including but not limited to "dark" things, "invisible" things, "magic" things, or things that are shy around a laboratory experiment.Gravity exists on Earth.&nbsp; it's doesn't predict the Earth will go "bang".&nbsp;&nbsp; At best case you might make the arguement that gravity predicts contraction of matter to a "singularity".&nbsp; You could never account for a "bang" from the gravity well that was created by the concentration of all that mass to a single location.I am not required to 'refute' Lambda theories.&nbsp; You are required to "explain" mainstream theories just like you require I explain the theories I put my faith in.&nbsp; The fact you can slap math to magical forces that defy the laws of nature as we know them is not "evidence" that your theory is correct.&nbsp; No known vector or scalar field in nature will retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; Inflation is literally a "supernatural" construct and not a single consumer product is based upon it's existence.&nbsp; More importantly it's "lab shy".&nbsp; It won't show up in any controlled laboratory experiment.&nbsp; Emprical science is based upon emprical testing in controlled emprical experiments.&nbsp; These experiments have "control mechanisms" that allow us to change the parameters of the experiment to be sure that we have correctly "interpreted" the information. &nbsp;None of the typical methods of science can be applied to inflation, or "dark energy".&nbsp; Without these things you could never hope to get explain a "bang" from a concentration of matter. &nbsp; The force of gravity is going to pull things together, not make them go "bang".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So, you refuse to provide scientific support for your assertions.&nbsp; That is as expected.</p><p>I expect the mods to follow through with their earlier statements regarding a requirement for the posters of pseudoscience to defend their position with solid science.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will "challenge my post" or provide emprical physical evidence that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination?&nbsp; You realize there is a difference between the two, and the onus of responsibility falls to you to demonstrate that inflation exists in nature, correct?You don't get to "demand" anything of the "skeptic" in the halls of science.&nbsp; You're the one that must provide factual evidence that inflation is a real, tangible, non fictional entity.&nbsp; I cannot "disprove" anything upon "demand".How does it fall to me to provide you with mathematical models to disprove inflation?&nbsp; You have the scientific method standing on it's head.&nbsp; I'm simply fulfilling the role of pure skeptic.&nbsp; I see no empicical evidence that inflation exists, that gravity "predicts" a "bang" or any of the claims you have made.Did you recently get promoted to moderator status, or is this just your little ego running amuck?&nbsp; When did you get to decide *how* I respond to your points?&nbsp; Hoy.I tend to disect *ideas* by the way.&nbsp; Excuse me?&nbsp; I have no "agenda" in this thread other than my original intent to point out the distinction between "MACHO" types of "dark matter" and the "new and improved", non-baryonic brands of DM that have been showing up lately and being credited with all sorts of unsubstanciated attributes.Your comment about General Relativity "predicting" a bang was simply an obvious mistatement of fact on your part.&nbsp; Gravity *might* be used to "predict" a singularity, but it could not be use to "predict" a "bang".&nbsp; You're the one getting all huffy and puffy about it. I take it you don't like "critics"?&nbsp; "Permanently"?&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; Did you have a virtual lynching in mind or what?&nbsp; If I disagree with anything you might say in future, I'm just supposed to "shut up" or else?You're already moving the goalposts I see.&nbsp; I said GR does not "predict' a bang.&nbsp; "Cosmological models" can do anything, including overcoming the force of gravity with all sorts of magical forces. &nbsp; LOL!&nbsp; Is that all?&nbsp; You best explain how your "smaller than a breadbox" lump of matter is going anywhere, particularly *outside* of the event horizon that must suround it.&nbsp; Please refrain from "making up" ad hoc forces that cannot be emrpically demonstrated in a lab, including but not limited to "dark" things, "invisible" things, "magic" things, or things that are shy around a laboratory experiment.Gravity exists on Earth.&nbsp; it's doesn't predict the Earth will go "bang".&nbsp;&nbsp; At best case you might make the arguement that gravity predicts contraction of matter to a "singularity".&nbsp; You could never account for a "bang" from the gravity well that was created by the concentration of all that mass to a single location.I am not required to 'refute' Lambda theories.&nbsp; You are required to "explain" mainstream theories just like you require I explain the theories I put my faith in.&nbsp; The fact you can slap math to magical forces that defy the laws of nature as we know them is not "evidence" that your theory is correct.&nbsp; No known vector or scalar field in nature will retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; Inflation is literally a "supernatural" construct and not a single consumer product is based upon it's existence.&nbsp; More importantly it's "lab shy".&nbsp; It won't show up in any controlled laboratory experiment.&nbsp; Emprical science is based upon emprical testing in controlled emprical experiments.&nbsp; These experiments have "control mechanisms" that allow us to change the parameters of the experiment to be sure that we have correctly "interpreted" the information. &nbsp;None of the typical methods of science can be applied to inflation, or "dark energy".&nbsp; Without these things you could never hope to get explain a "bang" from a concentration of matter. &nbsp; The force of gravity is going to pull things together, not make them go "bang".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So, you refuse to provide scientific support for your assertions.&nbsp; That is as expected.</p><p>I expect the mods to follow through with their earlier statements regarding a requirement for the posters of pseudoscience to defend their position with solid science.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will "challenge my post" or provide emprical physical evidence that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination?&nbsp; You realize there is a difference between the two, and the onus of responsibility falls to you to demonstrate that inflation exists in nature, correct?You don't get to "demand" anything of the "skeptic" in the halls of science.&nbsp; You're the one that must provide factual evidence that inflation is a real, tangible, non fictional entity.&nbsp; I cannot "disprove" anything upon "demand".How does it fall to me to provide you with mathematical models to disprove inflation?&nbsp; You have the scientific method standing on it's head.&nbsp; I'm simply fulfilling the role of pure skeptic.&nbsp; I see no empicical evidence that inflation exists, that gravity "predicts" a "bang" or any of the claims you have made.Did you recently get promoted to moderator status, or is this just your little ego running amuck?&nbsp; When did you get to decide *how* I respond to your points?&nbsp; Hoy.I tend to disect *ideas* by the way.&nbsp; Excuse me?&nbsp; I have no "agenda" in this thread other than my original intent to point out the distinction between "MACHO" types of "dark matter" and the "new and improved", non-baryonic brands of DM that have been showing up lately and being credited with all sorts of unsubstanciated attributes.Your comment about General Relativity "predicting" a bang was simply an obvious mistatement of fact on your part.&nbsp; Gravity *might* be used to "predict" a singularity, but it could not be use to "predict" a "bang".&nbsp; You're the one getting all huffy and puffy about it. I take it you don't like "critics"?&nbsp; "Permanently"?&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; Did you have a virtual lynching in mind or what?&nbsp; If I disagree with anything you might say in future, I'm just supposed to "shut up" or else?You're already moving the goalposts I see.&nbsp; I said GR does not "predict' a bang.&nbsp; "Cosmological models" can do anything, including overcoming the force of gravity with all sorts of magical forces. &nbsp; LOL!&nbsp; Is that all?&nbsp; You best explain how your "smaller than a breadbox" lump of matter is going anywhere, particularly *outside* of the event horizon that must suround it.&nbsp; Please refrain from "making up" ad hoc forces that cannot be emrpically demonstrated in a lab, including but not limited to "dark" things, "invisible" things, "magic" things, or things that are shy around a laboratory experiment.Gravity exists on Earth.&nbsp; it's doesn't predict the Earth will go "bang".&nbsp;&nbsp; At best case you might make the arguement that gravity predicts contraction of matter to a "singularity".&nbsp; You could never account for a "bang" from the gravity well that was created by the concentration of all that mass to a single location.I am not required to 'refute' Lambda theories.&nbsp; You are required to "explain" mainstream theories just like you require I explain the theories I put my faith in.&nbsp; The fact you can slap math to magical forces that defy the laws of nature as we know them is not "evidence" that your theory is correct.&nbsp; No known vector or scalar field in nature will retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; Inflation is literally a "supernatural" construct and not a single consumer product is based upon it's existence.&nbsp; More importantly it's "lab shy".&nbsp; It won't show up in any controlled laboratory experiment.&nbsp; Emprical science is based upon emprical testing in controlled emprical experiments.&nbsp; These experiments have "control mechanisms" that allow us to change the parameters of the experiment to be sure that we have correctly "interpreted" the information. &nbsp;None of the typical methods of science can be applied to inflation, or "dark energy".&nbsp; Without these things you could never hope to get explain a "bang" from a concentration of matter. &nbsp; The force of gravity is going to pull things together, not make them go "bang".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So, you refuse to provide scientific support for your assertions.&nbsp; That is as expected.</p><p>I expect the mods to follow through with their earlier statements regarding a requirement for the posters of pseudoscience to defend their position with solid science.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, you refuse to provide scientific support for your assertions.&nbsp; That is as expected.</DIV></p><p>Er, technically the only "assertion" I made was that your statement was false and GR does not "predict" a "bang". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I expect the mods to follow through with their earlier statements regarding a requirement for the posters of pseudoscience to defend their position with solid science.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You never provided any emprical "science" to support your claim that GR theory predicts a 'bang.&nbsp; It was *your* assertion, not mine.&nbsp; The only way a "bang" is going to occur is *if* gravity is no longer the primary force of nature. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, you refuse to provide scientific support for your assertions.&nbsp; That is as expected.</DIV></p><p>Er, technically the only "assertion" I made was that your statement was false and GR does not "predict" a "bang". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I expect the mods to follow through with their earlier statements regarding a requirement for the posters of pseudoscience to defend their position with solid science.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You never provided any emprical "science" to support your claim that GR theory predicts a 'bang.&nbsp; It was *your* assertion, not mine.&nbsp; The only way a "bang" is going to occur is *if* gravity is no longer the primary force of nature. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, you refuse to provide scientific support for your assertions.&nbsp; That is as expected.</DIV></p><p>Er, technically the only "assertion" I made was that your statement was false and GR does not "predict" a "bang". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I expect the mods to follow through with their earlier statements regarding a requirement for the posters of pseudoscience to defend their position with solid science.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You never provided any emprical "science" to support your claim that GR theory predicts a 'bang.&nbsp; It was *your* assertion, not mine.&nbsp; The only way a "bang" is going to occur is *if* gravity is no longer the primary force of nature. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, you refuse to provide scientific support for your assertions.&nbsp; That is as expected.</DIV></p><p>Er, technically the only "assertion" I made was that your statement was false and GR does not "predict" a "bang". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I expect the mods to follow through with their earlier statements regarding a requirement for the posters of pseudoscience to defend their position with solid science.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You never provided any emprical "science" to support your claim that GR theory predicts a 'bang.&nbsp; It was *your* assertion, not mine.&nbsp; The only way a "bang" is going to occur is *if* gravity is no longer the primary force of nature. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's heartening to see such passion in a scientific debate.&nbsp; MOND reminds me of the astronomers of previous centuries inventing ever more complex systems of interlocking crystal spheres to explain the observed trajectories of the planets.&nbsp; Still, as clear and obvious as Galileo's and Keppler's more elegant explanations seem to us now, they took a very long time to be widely accepted.&nbsp; Turn-of-the-century physicists struggled to accept Relativity, and even Einstein struggled to accept Quantum Theory.&nbsp; Every great breakthrough begins as a crazy idea, is grudgingly accepted as the evidence mounts and is eventually seen as completely obvious.&nbsp; Dark matter is certainly at the earliier part of this spectrum, butthe evidence so far seems compelling.&nbsp; I eagerly anticipate future evidence and theories. <br /> Posted by TimG</DIV></p><p>Well, fortunately we have new particle colliders coming online so SUSY related theories can finally hope to be "tested" to at least some degree.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's heartening to see such passion in a scientific debate.&nbsp; MOND reminds me of the astronomers of previous centuries inventing ever more complex systems of interlocking crystal spheres to explain the observed trajectories of the planets.&nbsp; Still, as clear and obvious as Galileo's and Keppler's more elegant explanations seem to us now, they took a very long time to be widely accepted.&nbsp; Turn-of-the-century physicists struggled to accept Relativity, and even Einstein struggled to accept Quantum Theory.&nbsp; Every great breakthrough begins as a crazy idea, is grudgingly accepted as the evidence mounts and is eventually seen as completely obvious.&nbsp; Dark matter is certainly at the earliier part of this spectrum, butthe evidence so far seems compelling.&nbsp; I eagerly anticipate future evidence and theories. <br /> Posted by TimG</DIV></p><p>Well, fortunately we have new particle colliders coming online so SUSY related theories can finally hope to be "tested" to at least some degree.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's heartening to see such passion in a scientific debate.&nbsp; MOND reminds me of the astronomers of previous centuries inventing ever more complex systems of interlocking crystal spheres to explain the observed trajectories of the planets.&nbsp; Still, as clear and obvious as Galileo's and Keppler's more elegant explanations seem to us now, they took a very long time to be widely accepted.&nbsp; Turn-of-the-century physicists struggled to accept Relativity, and even Einstein struggled to accept Quantum Theory.&nbsp; Every great breakthrough begins as a crazy idea, is grudgingly accepted as the evidence mounts and is eventually seen as completely obvious.&nbsp; Dark matter is certainly at the earliier part of this spectrum, butthe evidence so far seems compelling.&nbsp; I eagerly anticipate future evidence and theories. <br /> Posted by TimG</DIV></p><p>Well, fortunately we have new particle colliders coming online so SUSY related theories can finally hope to be "tested" to at least some degree.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's heartening to see such passion in a scientific debate.&nbsp; MOND reminds me of the astronomers of previous centuries inventing ever more complex systems of interlocking crystal spheres to explain the observed trajectories of the planets.&nbsp; Still, as clear and obvious as Galileo's and Keppler's more elegant explanations seem to us now, they took a very long time to be widely accepted.&nbsp; Turn-of-the-century physicists struggled to accept Relativity, and even Einstein struggled to accept Quantum Theory.&nbsp; Every great breakthrough begins as a crazy idea, is grudgingly accepted as the evidence mounts and is eventually seen as completely obvious.&nbsp; Dark matter is certainly at the earliier part of this spectrum, butthe evidence so far seems compelling.&nbsp; I eagerly anticipate future evidence and theories. <br /> Posted by TimG</DIV></p><p>Well, fortunately we have new particle colliders coming online so SUSY related theories can finally hope to be "tested" to at least some degree.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from &lsquo;Space Science & Astronomy&rsquo; to &lsquo;The Unexplained&rsquo; will be like admitting that issues of &lsquo;Dark Matter&rsquo; isn&rsquo;t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV><br /><br />Yes it would be. However, we will not allow threads to be trashed to that point. Other actions will be taken to ensure that threads in Science fora discuss science, and do not devolve into infinite parsing of sentences with no useful content. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from &lsquo;Space Science & Astronomy&rsquo; to &lsquo;The Unexplained&rsquo; will be like admitting that issues of &lsquo;Dark Matter&rsquo; isn&rsquo;t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV><br /><br />Yes it would be. However, we will not allow threads to be trashed to that point. Other actions will be taken to ensure that threads in Science fora discuss science, and do not devolve into infinite parsing of sentences with no useful content. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from &lsquo;Space Science & Astronomy&rsquo; to &lsquo;The Unexplained&rsquo; will be like admitting that issues of &lsquo;Dark Matter&rsquo; isn&rsquo;t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV><br /><br />Yes it would be. However, we will not allow threads to be trashed to that point. Other actions will be taken to ensure that threads in Science fora discuss science, and do not devolve into infinite parsing of sentences with no useful content. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from &lsquo;Space Science & Astronomy&rsquo; to &lsquo;The Unexplained&rsquo; will be like admitting that issues of &lsquo;Dark Matter&rsquo; isn&rsquo;t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV><br /><br />Yes it would be. However, we will not allow threads to be trashed to that point. Other actions will be taken to ensure that threads in Science fora discuss science, and do not devolve into infinite parsing of sentences with no useful content. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, technically the only "assertion" I made was that your statement was false and GR does not "predict" a "bang". You never provided any emprical "science" to support your claim that GR theory predicts a 'bang.&nbsp; It was *your* assertion, not mine.&nbsp; The only way a "bang" is going to occur is *if* gravity is no longer the primary force of nature. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />That is your interpretation. Other viewpoints exist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, technically the only "assertion" I made was that your statement was false and GR does not "predict" a "bang". You never provided any emprical "science" to support your claim that GR theory predicts a 'bang.&nbsp; It was *your* assertion, not mine.&nbsp; The only way a "bang" is going to occur is *if* gravity is no longer the primary force of nature. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />That is your interpretation. Other viewpoints exist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, technically the only "assertion" I made was that your statement was false and GR does not "predict" a "bang". You never provided any emprical "science" to support your claim that GR theory predicts a 'bang.&nbsp; It was *your* assertion, not mine.&nbsp; The only way a "bang" is going to occur is *if* gravity is no longer the primary force of nature. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />That is your interpretation. Other viewpoints exist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, technically the only "assertion" I made was that your statement was false and GR does not "predict" a "bang". You never provided any emprical "science" to support your claim that GR theory predicts a 'bang.&nbsp; It was *your* assertion, not mine.&nbsp; The only way a "bang" is going to occur is *if* gravity is no longer the primary force of nature. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />That is your interpretation. Other viewpoints exist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is your interpretation. Other viewpoints exist. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>In the sense that multiverse theories exist, Alfven's bang theory exists, and string theories abound, sure.&nbsp;&nbsp; On the other hand, any theory that begins with a matter concentration to something the size of a singularity is going to require a huge amount of energy to just go 'bang'.&nbsp; The event horizon around something like this would be huge and the force of gravity will be enormous.&nbsp;&nbsp; The tendency of gravity would be to contain the mass object, not make it go "bang". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is your interpretation. Other viewpoints exist. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>In the sense that multiverse theories exist, Alfven's bang theory exists, and string theories abound, sure.&nbsp;&nbsp; On the other hand, any theory that begins with a matter concentration to something the size of a singularity is going to require a huge amount of energy to just go 'bang'.&nbsp; The event horizon around something like this would be huge and the force of gravity will be enormous.&nbsp;&nbsp; The tendency of gravity would be to contain the mass object, not make it go "bang". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is your interpretation. Other viewpoints exist. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>In the sense that multiverse theories exist, Alfven's bang theory exists, and string theories abound, sure.&nbsp;&nbsp; On the other hand, any theory that begins with a matter concentration to something the size of a singularity is going to require a huge amount of energy to just go 'bang'.&nbsp; The event horizon around something like this would be huge and the force of gravity will be enormous.&nbsp;&nbsp; The tendency of gravity would be to contain the mass object, not make it go "bang". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is your interpretation. Other viewpoints exist. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>In the sense that multiverse theories exist, Alfven's bang theory exists, and string theories abound, sure.&nbsp;&nbsp; On the other hand, any theory that begins with a matter concentration to something the size of a singularity is going to require a huge amount of energy to just go 'bang'.&nbsp; The event horizon around something like this would be huge and the force of gravity will be enormous.&nbsp;&nbsp; The tendency of gravity would be to contain the mass object, not make it go "bang". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, technically the only "assertion" I made was that your statement was false and GR does not "predict" a "bang". You never provided any emprical "science" to support your claim that GR theory predicts a 'bang.&nbsp; It was *your* assertion, not mine.&nbsp; The only way a "bang" is going to occur is *if* gravity is no longer the primary force of nature. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You made several assertions.&nbsp; They are noted in my post.</p><p>Specific questions were posed in my post.&nbsp; And solid references were provided for the mainstream positions, including the FACT that models based on general relativity predict the Big Bang.</p><p>The questions are all there. So is the scientific basis for them&nbsp; RESPOND if you can.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>