yes because the forces and velocities of rocks is so hard to calculate.

Maybe you have already seen this

but it is a debate between bill nye + Ken Ham (on whether creationism? is viable in modern science)
i'm not religious: but i enjoy how bill nye just kind of destroyed him, and it the very least puts an interesting perspective on things on how others think



This post was edited by gibbles on Feb 16 2014 05:42pm

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA[/YOUTUBE]

great more electric universe bullshit!

here go learn the difference between science and pseudoscience:

i don't understand why you are so angry about electric universe, of course its not perfect, but it has some great ideas, its time to discard these victorian age text books that teach relativity and quantum
mathematical theories like quantum physics is not real science because it cant be pier reviewed unless you own your own large hardron collider, they can just do whatever they want and make whatever claim they want without repeatability or pier review from independent groups
and big bang theories are not science, as they are creationist religions that require you to believe in black holes and big bangs and red shift as a way to measure distance (lol)

/edit
and may i also add that mathematics bears no relationship to reality, math can only model what we observe and make predictions, but i see so many people trying to substitute real observation and data with mathematical models

This post was edited by Skydaddy on Feb 24 2014 06:45pm

Uh quantum mechanics is from the 20th century, and what most people mean when they say relativity is from the 20th century.


Really, so you believe quantum mechanics is from the Victorian Era, but it requires the LHC?...


The big bang does not require "belief in black holes". And I just don't know what to say to your notion that red-shifting isn't real....


Tell that to the clerk at the grocery store when he gives you your change...

I didn't really want to get into this, especially with someone so rude and obtuse, but here we go, i guess...

victorian age is generally the late 1800's to the early 1900's, and maybe its a stretch to say the 1920's are victorian, but i believe you understood my point, that much of this stuff is based on old out dated notions and built on false assumptions like the nuclear atom, but i don't intend to argue for or against a theory, the resources and information is out there for those that look


to gather real data and observations on quantum, yes you need an LHC, i'm sorry but the double slit experiment would not hold up in today's world, therefore it means that quantum is purely theoretical and mathematical theory craft for 99.9% of the population, which throws it into the realm of religion because it requires faith to believe in these academic wizards



big bang, expanding universe, and black holes are all implied by each other, i have not seen any big bang theory that does not include all 3 things, and there is no observational evidence for black holes, or expanding universe, and the ridiculously low age date they put on the universe of 14 billion years or so is truly sad, the universe cannot be dated with an age, because time itself is part of the universe, it might as well be called ageless, or beyond human comprehension, for our purposes

on red shift, i never said red shift it self is not real. red shift is a real observatio, it cannot however be used as an accurate determination for distance as quasars have proven beyond doubt


and this one, i feel nothing more needs to be said, because its just silly

This post was edited by Skydaddy on Feb 24 2014 10:38pm

please get an understanding of current physics before you go about talking this blasphemy.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/universe.html

i would start there.