the big bang

123457»

Comments

  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    alanp23 wrote:
    I thought this thread had happily packed its bags and slid off down the thread history. I nearly got dragged in but I think managed to extricate myself from its gravitational field.

    Let it go... please!

    This is not the thread you're looking for
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    GiantMike wrote:
    Now I'm confused. If it's just the evidence that matters, and you've given an example of a formula that hasn't/can't been proven through measurement, how can we believe it?

    Is c a constant? Or is this an assumption?
    We can't 'believe' it with absolute certainty! The level of certainty in this case depends on a hundred years of very precise observation. In order to say it is wrong though, as meursault does, with absolute certainty, we would need some evidence against the theory. All the available evidence supports the theory.

    c is a constant. There is a tiny uncertainty in the measurement of time, is this the assumption you refer to? Distance is defined in terms of c, so c has a precise value.

    The general point that all arguments must have axioms, a starting point or starting assumption is fine in principle. For this to be useful though, you have to do something with it, not just restate the point. Occam's Razor would be well worth applying to 'A Contracting Universe'.

    p.s. My humblest apologies to anyone who has been forced to read this thread and found it boring. I feel I must accept some of the responsibility.
  • freddiegrubb
    freddiegrubb Posts: 448
    Tom, you & a couple of others can accept ALL the responsibility, cleat & I are totally innocent of all charges !!!!!!

Categories