Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

Put that knife and fork away Eta. Let's start slowly eh? Suaverider, you were warned. Now you've attracted the attention of an actual PhD astrophysicist. You may find out how little you know much sooner than was anticipated.(as an aside, it is also possible that you know so little you haven't a hope of realizing just how little it is )

Oooo Oooo what a present that would be! Please please get him to drop in and visit! The blood lust! The great fun!LOL, you have no idea how many people here would love to have him to "discuss" things with.

Suave, we have seen what you have posted and the kinds of statments you have made. Crash might be wrong about you and will modify his views as more information comes in. However, we have also seen a lot of individuals like you too. From that we make snap judegments that you are like so many others. So far you haven't demonstrated that you have a tiny clue about the subjects at hand.If a bet was in the offing I'd bet that crash is right."We" in the above case is crash and a number of other regulars here. Crash shouldn't, of course, generalize that much. If you take the "we" as being a collective thing then the sum of the expertise on creationism here far exceeds what anyone person could have even if they were deeply familiar with the material. That wouldn't be a fair way to take it.If you don't like these stereotypes being applied to you then you can show who they are false.Or you can pull a very common trick and decided that your honour is deeply wounded and deem us unworthy of further discussion and leave in a huff. That happens a lot. It especially tends to happen when someone is asked to defend their position and assertions.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-28-2004 01:44 PM

Very good, that always makes it more interesting. We look forward to it.If it is concerned with evolution please post to the appropriate threads. It is about time this one got back on topic. If it is not well thought out you may have a lot of trouble defending it. Continuing to fail to back up assertions can get you suspended while you do think it out well.

But there's one of your problems. Quantum mechanics doesn't make "sense" as in common sense. It has this interesting attribute that it works. If it didn't your computer wouldn't.The phrase "quantum weirdness" crops up now and then. And it is weird outside any of our everyday experiences.You may not like it, Einstein didn't. However, that seems to be the way it is. It works, deal with that.

Nope, haveing done a lot of programming in several languages for a variety of purposes and having taken the beginnings of higher mathematics I can say that you are very, very unlikely to have the math skilss yet. You can list off the areas you know but if it doesn't include the differential calculus and group theory then you haven't even started, not scratched the surface, not a tiny little bit.

The equations for the motion of a body under the influence of gravity are basically Newton's laws of motion plus that for the gravitation force. Google those and you will find them.However, it turns out that to precisely calculate the furture position of a body when there are 3 or more bodies interacting isn't possible. I don't know the reason for that.These calculations are on the very, very simple end of things. Very simple. In fact my daughter took them (and special relavity ) in grade 11.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/...1/lect/history/newtongrav.htmlIt covers (I just scanned it quickly) laws of motion and gravitation. If you have questions ask away.

It is fun to have you around Eta. It's a shame that people still post about stuff that they don't know anything about.

All significant theories have some issues that need to be addressed. That is why there is room to advance.All that we are saying is that the best that we have leads to a specific conclusion. We hold that conclusion as being reasonable until something else comes along.It may be that GR is what is wrong not QM when it comes to a theory of quantum gravity. It maybe that handling gravity will be an extention to QM rather than an over throw.The comments about the accuracy of the predictions shows that, even if there are limits to where QM (as we know it) applies, it still works very well. It is foolish to disregard something which works so well and for which we have no better (and in fact nothing near to it).If you don't like the answers that QM gives us right now then replace it with something that works just as well and extends beyond QM and gives you answers that you like better. Einstein didn't like some of the ideas of QM and tried to work around it for decades. Do you think you can do better?

I happen to agree with you. God can be conjectured to do anything at all. That is why is really isn't a productive use of time to discuss what God can and can not do.Conjecturing God as the cause of the big bang, for example, gets us no where. It is just the latest gap to stuff a god into.One difference though is that we see stuff just being created out of nothing all the time. That is a measurable prediction of QM.We have yet to be able to find anything measureable or make a prediction based on the god did it hypothosis.Therefore though neither of them can be said to really explain the origin of the universe the science approach has a track record that suggests it is a better path to take.