How many times will the analogy to evolution be mis-quoted, or mis-understood? Doesn't matter. Also, our own Physicist has used the Annie Hall line: "Brooklyn is not expanding!"
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Science Ping! |
An elite subset of the Evolution list. |
See list's description in my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added/dropped. |
|
|
|
2 posted on
02/24/2005 3:55:56 AM PST by
PatrickHenry
(<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
To: PatrickHenry
At Earth's surface, the outward acceleration away from the planet's center equals a tiny fraction (1030) of the normal inward gravitational acceleration Well I have always said that.
J/K...need my morning cup of coffee to make coherent sense of this stuff.
3 posted on
02/24/2005 4:06:31 AM PST by
mattdono
("Crush the democrats, drive them before you, and hear the lamentations of the scumbags" -Big Arnie)
To: PatrickHenry
Hey, if you believe something came out of nothing, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you, real cheap!
To: PatrickHenry
"I believe in th ebig Bang theory-- The Bible declares
In the beginning God said let there be be. . . and BANG it was good.
7 posted on
02/24/2005 4:29:32 AM PST by
StonyBurk
To: PatrickHenry
First there was NOTHING and then NOTHING exploded!
9 posted on
02/24/2005 4:35:30 AM PST by
sirchtruth
(Words Mean Things...)
To: PatrickHenry
This is a good article, thanks for posting.
To: PatrickHenry
At Earth's surface, the outward acceleration away from the planet's center equals a tiny fraction (1030) of the normal inward gravitational acceleration.So, is light expanding too, or is it unaffected by the expansion?
13 posted on
02/24/2005 4:41:59 AM PST by
SlowBoat407
(Give Lebanon back to the Lebanese!)
To: PatrickHenry
Next time I hear some Luddite say, "In the beginning was nothing, and then it exploded," I'm going to frap him upside the head with this article.
14 posted on
02/24/2005 4:44:35 AM PST by
Junior
(FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
To: PatrickHenry
18 posted on
02/24/2005 4:52:40 AM PST by
UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
(Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
To: PatrickHenry
Like Darwinian evolution, cosmic expansion provides the context within which simple structures form and develop over time into complex structures. Without evolution and expansion, modern biology and cosmology make little sense.The structural complexity of the simplest one-celled organism far exceeds the complexity of joining together individual cells in a cooperative way to make multi-celled organisms.
21 posted on
02/24/2005 5:15:33 AM PST by
TigersEye
(Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
To: PatrickHenry
Truly nothing new here move along. These are the same explanations/ analogies I have been reading since I was a kid. My best guess is the physicists still don't know what they are talking about, whether the reason is religion or not.
24 posted on
02/24/2005 5:24:22 AM PST by
Williams
To: PatrickHenry
The expansion of the universe may be the most important fact we have ever discovered about our origins.
The supposed expansion of the universe. Once people latched on to the concept of stellar red shift as an indication of recessional velocity, everything else was redefined (or ignored as anomalous) to fit.
25 posted on
02/24/2005 5:24:26 AM PST by
aruanan
To: PatrickHenry
An accelerating universe, then, resembles a black hole in that it has an event horizon, an edge beyond which we cannot see.I like this statement. It makes me wonder if we are really inside a black hole. Could the collapse of matter under gravity continue indefinitely? Could more and more space be generated "inside" (and I use the term very loosely) a black hole that would appear as an expansionary universe to an observer inside the even horizon of a black hole? Could "nested" black holes either one, or a cluster of singularities with their own unique even horizons, exist with a common event horizon relative to an observer outside this event horizon? Just doing some pre-caffiene speculation.
28 posted on
02/24/2005 5:58:31 AM PST by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: PatrickHenry
Saved to read later.
I can hardly wait for the central question, which science has been tap-dancing around forever. The explanation for:
First there was nothing; then it exploded.
To: PatrickHenry
Awesome article. I thought I understood the Big Bang. I didn't. I still don't, not really, but at least now I know that I don't.
To: PatrickHenry
Thank you again.
If there were a Science Forum would the SN's still come?
40 posted on
02/24/2005 7:01:50 AM PST by
ASA Vet
(FR needs a science forum.)
To: PatrickHenry
47 posted on
02/24/2005 8:22:37 AM PST by
SouthParkRepublican
(There are no contradictions... Only faulty premises.)
To: PatrickHenry
John Derbyshire reviewed this book in the latest issue of National Review
Another link imbedded in image.
48 posted on
02/24/2005 8:24:11 AM PST by
Radix
(The next time that I find a good Tag Line, I'll be sure to post it here.)
To: PatrickHenry; newgeezer
I can think of a really big and obvious one.
49 posted on
02/24/2005 8:24:48 AM PST by
biblewonk
(Neither was the man created for woman but the woman for the man.)
To: PatrickHenry
Sciam Articles have a higher than average tendency to find their way into the Smokey Back Room. Wondering ...
56 posted on
02/24/2005 8:33:12 AM PST by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson