|
oh wow, i offended the religion of science. the groupies jumped me.
no one observed the big bang and no one proved it. fully educated PHDs in physics are arguing and disagreeing amongst each other about the theory of big bang and you found me to pick on?. fuck off and google, i'm only repeating what they're saying.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.html
http://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trouble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/news070219-4.html
Steinhardt emphasizes that his analysis holds only because, so far, the LHC has not found any discrepancies with the standard model of particle physics. If future runs of the LHC discover exotic particles, then the energy profile of the Higgs will be recalculated accordingly. “But if you take the data we’ve been given and just follow your nose, then inflation and the whole Big Bang paradigm seem to be in big trouble,” Steinhardt says.
Cycling cosmosThe theory claims to reconcile the notion of a cyclic universe, which expands and contracts for eternity, with the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to imply that the current expansion cannot reverse.
As escape clauses go, this one is jaw-droppingly extravagant. Not only does the turnaround happen less than a thousand-trillion-trillionth (10-27) of a second before a 'Big Rip' in which everything falls apart, but it splits our Universe into countless new and independent ones.
And as the Universe has already gone through an infinite number of cycles, the model predicts an already infinite number of parallel universes, Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill report in Physical Review Letters1.
|
On July 11 2013 05:17 xM(Z wrote:oh wow, i offended the religion of science. the groupies jumped me. no one observed the big bang and no one proved it. fully educated PHDs in physics are arguing and disagreeing amongst each other about the theory of big bang and you found me to pick on?. fuck off and google, i'm only repeating what they're saying. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htmhttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trouble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/news070219-4.htmlShow nested quote +Steinhardt emphasizes that his analysis holds only because, so far, the LHC has not found any discrepancies with the standard model of particle physics. If future runs of the LHC discover exotic particles, then the energy profile of the Higgs will be recalculated accordingly. “But if you take the data we’ve been given and just follow your nose, then inflation and the whole Big Bang paradigm seem to be in big trouble,” Steinhardt says. Cycling cosmos Show nested quote +The theory claims to reconcile the notion of a cyclic universe, which expands and contracts for eternity, with the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to imply that the current expansion cannot reverse.
As escape clauses go, this one is jaw-droppingly extravagant. Not only does the turnaround happen less than a thousand-trillion-trillionth (10-27) of a second before a 'Big Rip' in which everything falls apart, but it splits our Universe into countless new and independent ones.
And as the Universe has already gone through an infinite number of cycles, the model predicts an already infinite number of parallel universes, Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill report in Physical Review Letters1.
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang.
|
There's nothing wrong with questioning the Big Bang theory. We could be wrong for all we know. He's right in that the beginning of the universe is quite a controversial topic among physicists.
|
On July 11 2013 02:56 wherebugsgo wrote:
You can represent neurons relatively well classically, but no, I would say it's not possible to completely accurately represent what happens at the synapse of a neuron purely with classical physics.
That's interesting. I just did a search but couldn't come up with any papers on quantum effects playing significant roles in neural activity and behavior. It was a quick search, so i'm probably just missing them. Maybe you could provide some? It sounds like an interesting idea, and I'd be curious to check out some papers from, say, Nature Neuroscience or something on that level of impact/prestige
|
On July 11 2013 06:23 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:56 wherebugsgo wrote:
You can represent neurons relatively well classically, but no, I would say it's not possible to completely accurately represent what happens at the synapse of a neuron purely with classical physics.
That's interesting. I just did a search but couldn't come up with any papers on quantum effects playing significant roles in neural activity and behavior. It was a quick search, so i'm probably just missing them. Maybe you could provide some? It sounds like an interesting idea, and I'd be curious to check out some papers from, say, Nature Neuroscience or something on that level of impact/prestige
Check this one out:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qua.560110109/pdf
On the other hand, on the scale of the brain, there are contradictory articles on whether the brain as a whole should be treated as a classical system or a quantum sysetm; one that argues in the favor of the classical approach is this one:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009.pdf
It very well could be outdated though, as the article is from 1999.
The following is not an article, just really an essay, but I thought the introductory paragraph succintly describes the problem of conflicting ideas between physicists and neuroscientists pretty well. You don't really need a good background in QM to understand the gist of what's being discussed, though a background in QM certainly helps.
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/news/koch-hepp-06.pdf
|
On July 11 2013 06:32 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 06:23 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 11 2013 02:56 wherebugsgo wrote:
You can represent neurons relatively well classically, but no, I would say it's not possible to completely accurately represent what happens at the synapse of a neuron purely with classical physics.
That's interesting. I just did a search but couldn't come up with any papers on quantum effects playing significant roles in neural activity and behavior. It was a quick search, so i'm probably just missing them. Maybe you could provide some? It sounds like an interesting idea, and I'd be curious to check out some papers from, say, Nature Neuroscience or something on that level of impact/prestige Check this one out: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qua.560110109/pdfOn the other hand, on the scale of the brain, there are contradictory articles on whether the brain as a whole should be treated as a classical system or a quantum sysetm; one that argues in the favor of the classical approach is this one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009.pdfIt very well could be outdated though, as the article is from 1999. The following is not an article, just really an essay, but I thought the introductory paragraph succintly describes the problem of conflicting ideas between physicists and neuroscientists pretty well. You don't really need a good background in QM to understand the gist of what's being discussed, though a background in QM certainly helps. http://www.klab.caltech.edu/news/koch-hepp-06.pdf
This might interest you:
Baars, B.J., Edelman, C.B. (2012). Consciousness, biology and quantum hypotheses. Physics of Life Reviews 9(3): 285-94.
Natural phenomena are reducible to quantum events in principle, but quantum mechanics does not always provide the best level of analysis. The many-body problem, chaotic avalanches, materials properties, biological organisms, and weather systems are better addressed at higher levels. Animals are highly organized, goal-directed, adaptive, selectionist, information-preserving, functionally redundant, multicellular, quasi-autonomous, highly mobile, reproducing, dissipative systems that conserve many fundamental features over remarkably long periods of time at the species level. Animal brains consist of massive, layered networks of specialized signaling cells with 10,000 communication points per cell, and interacting up to 1000 Hz. Neurons begin to divide and differentiate very early in gestation, and continue to develop until middle age. Waking brains operate far from thermodynamic equilibrium under delicate homeostatic control, making them extremely sensitive to a range of physical and chemical stimuli, highly adaptive, and able to produce a remarkable range of goal-relevant actions. Consciousness is "a difference that makes a difference" at the level of massive neuronal interactions in the most parallel-interactive anatomical structure of the mammalian brain, the cortico-thalamic (C-T) system. Other brain structures are not established to result in direct conscious experiences, at least in humans. However, indirect extra-cortical influences on the C-T system are pervasive. Learning, brain plasticity and major life adaptations may require conscious cognition. While brains evolved over hundreds of millions of years, and individual brains grow over months, years and decades, conscious events appear to have a duty cycle of ∼100 ms, fading after a few seconds. They can of course be refreshed by inner rehearsal, re-visualization, or attending to recurrent stimulus sources. These very distinctive brain events are needed when animals seek out and cope with new, unpredictable and highly valued life events, such as evading predators, gathering critical information, seeking mates and hunting prey. Attentional selection of conscious events can be observed behaviorally in animals showing coordinated receptor orienting, flexible responding, alertness, emotional reactions, seeking, motivation and curiosity, as well as behavioral surprise and cortical and autonomic arousal. Brain events corresponding to attentional selection are prominent and widespread. Attention generally results in conscious experiences, which may be needed to recruit widespread processing resources in the brain. Many neuronal processes never become conscious, such as the balance system of the inner ear. An air traveler may "see" the passenger cabin tilt downward as the plane tilts to descend for a landing. That visual experience occurs even at night, when the traveler has no external frame of spatial reference. The passenger's body tilt with respect to gravity is detected unconsciously via the hair cells of the vestibular canals, which act as liquid accelerometers. However, that sensory activity is not experienced directly. It only becomes conscious via vision and the body senses. The vestibular sense is therefore quite different from visual perception, which "reports" accurately to a conscious field of experience, so that we can point accurately to a bright star on a dark night. Vestibular input is also precise but unconscious. Conscious cognition is therefore a distinct kind of brain event. Many of its features are well established, and must be accounted for by any adequate theory. No non-biological examples are known. Penrose and Hameroff have proposed that consciousness may be viewed as a fundamental problem in quantum physics. Specifically, their 'orchestrated objective reduction' (Orch-OR) hypothesis posits that conscious states arise from quantum computations in the microtubules of neurons. However, a number of microtubule-associated proteins are found in both plant and animal cells (like neurons) and plants are not generally considered to be conscious. Current quantum-level proposals do not explain the prominent empirical features of consciousness. Notably, they do not distinguish between closely matched conscious and unconscious brain events, as cognitive-biological theories must. About half of the human brain does not support conscious contents directly, yet neurons in these "unconscious" brain regions contain large numbers of microtubules. QM phenomena are famously observer-dependent, but to the best of our knowledge it has not been shown that they require a conscious observer, as opposed to a particle detector. Conscious humans cannot detect quantum events "as such" without the aid of special instrumentation. Instead, we categorize the wavelengths of light into conscious sensory events that neglect their quantum mechanical properties. In science the burden of proof is on the proposer, and this burden has not yet been met by quantum-level proposals. While in the future we may discover quantum effects that bear distinctively on conscious cognition 'as such,' we do not have such evidence today.
|
I don't see at all how that's relevant to what I am saying.
I'm not saying that the brain is representable as a quantum mechanical system (it might very well be, though there's no evidence that it's necessary-classical representations seem fine for now at least). I'm saying that neurons are most definitely affected by QM phenomena. Neurons can be represented classically, but that does not mean that they are not affected by QM, just like how we can use classical physics to model everyday situations, but it does not mean that QM effects are not apparent in everyday life.
That's readily evident given the scale of the parts of the neuron I'm talking about, specifically the synaptic cleft. The first article I cited also does a pretty good job of describing a process that cannot happen in a classical system.
Essentially, if you haven't read the first article, a very nonscientific explanation of the QM tunneling observed in synaptic transmission is that a given particle has a finite probability of passing through a potential barrier that is inversely dependent on the width of the barrier, even if in a classical system this potential barrier is high enough to prevent the particle from passing through.
This suggests that something that is considered to be an insulator may actually allow the passage of electrons if it is thin enough. QM describes this process that has been observed to occur, one that cannot occur in the classical representation of the system.
e: also both the other articles actually disagree with the idea that QM can be used to describe the brain on a macroscopic level.
|
On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang.
In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion.
|
On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion.
It's always okay to question, but you'd better have a good reason to do so. A scientific theory means it's an explanation that fits all known data in a quantifiable and clean manner.
Questioning means you have data that contradicts the theory, not "I don't like it, so I'm gonna call it a theory, neener neener".
|
@wherebugsgo aka georgewbush 
Quantum mechanics happens at the brain, just as it happens anywhere there are atoms. What I am saying is that until we find evidence for any quantum effect significantly contributing to cognition, we should not assume too much about that idea. Right now it appears to be just a 'maybe' that quantum mechanics could play a role in consciousness and cognition. There isn't any evidence for it. While particles do funny things within individual atoms and such, there doesn't seem to be any link to effects on cognition and consciousness right now.
If you weren't talking about QM affecting cognition and the like, my mistake
|
On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion.
A theory is what we know as fact up until more information is present.
The big bang is what it is because all evidence we currently have says so, when new evidence comes, we change what we know about the big bang.
We can talk about different parts of the theory, parts that are insufficient, parts that seems misunderstood, etc..
But being that evidence points to it (right now) means that questions should be posed as a different way to look at the evidence currently available.
His argument literally started with "did someone actually see the big bang happening?" which stupid. Had he said "_____ could have been the cause of the background radiation we've detected" or something akin to that, then you can have a discussion. Beginning at "we didn't have a witness to see the beginning of the universe" prevents all conversation.
|
On July 11 2013 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion. It's always okay to question, but you'd better have a good reason to do so. A scientific theory means it's an explanation that fits all known data in a quantifiable and clean manner. Questioning means you have data that contradicts the theory, not "I don't like it, so I'm gonna call it a theory, neener neener".
there's data that contradicts quantum mechanics and relativity theory. you surprised?
in science it works like this: you actually dont question things, but you provide better theories which answer more questions than the previous theory.
i'm trying to sound a lil' cocky. you can surely question things for the sake of just questioning. but that doesnt do anything.
|
On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion.
Every time someone says "just a theory" when talking about science, I die a little inside.
|
On July 11 2013 07:23 TritaN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion. Every time someone says "just a theory" when talking about science, I die a little inside.
?
do you have no imagination whatsoever? big bang theory is just a theory, sorry bro
|
On July 11 2013 05:17 xM(Z wrote:oh wow, i offended the religion of science. the groupies jumped me. no one observed the big bang and no one proved it. fully educated PHDs in physics are arguing and disagreeing amongst each other about the theory of big bang and you found me to pick on?. fuck off and google, i'm only repeating what they're saying. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htmhttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trouble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/news070219-4.htmlShow nested quote +Steinhardt emphasizes that his analysis holds only because, so far, the LHC has not found any discrepancies with the standard model of particle physics. If future runs of the LHC discover exotic particles, then the energy profile of the Higgs will be recalculated accordingly. “But if you take the data we’ve been given and just follow your nose, then inflation and the whole Big Bang paradigm seem to be in big trouble,” Steinhardt says. Cycling cosmos Show nested quote +The theory claims to reconcile the notion of a cyclic universe, which expands and contracts for eternity, with the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to imply that the current expansion cannot reverse.
As escape clauses go, this one is jaw-droppingly extravagant. Not only does the turnaround happen less than a thousand-trillion-trillionth (10-27) of a second before a 'Big Rip' in which everything falls apart, but it splits our Universe into countless new and independent ones.
And as the Universe has already gone through an infinite number of cycles, the model predicts an already infinite number of parallel universes, Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill report in Physical Review Letters1.
This is what you said:
the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory.
as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God.
after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference.
(edited for clarity, i think)
People objected to:
"It's just a theory" (Weird view of science)
Putting the Big Bang theory at the level of believing in God, clearly skipping over what actually the theory is founded on.
Maybe you should google some yourself and see WHY people actually believe it instead of the opposite... And maybe you should ask yourself why people are jumping on you in several of the main board threads instead of throwing us all into the "groupies" category like we have some secret motive to smear your name.
|
On July 11 2013 07:25 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:23 TritaN wrote:On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion. Every time someone says "just a theory" when talking about science, I die a little inside. ? do you have no imagination whatsoever? big bang theory is just a theory, sorry bro
The atomic theory is just a theory
The theory of gravity is just a theory
The germ theory of disease is just a theory
Evolution is just a theory
Saying "just a theory" when talking about science is probably the #1 thing you can do to expose your lack of understanding of science. Try again, bro.
|
On July 11 2013 07:31 TritaN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:25 beg wrote:On July 11 2013 07:23 TritaN wrote:On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion. Every time someone says "just a theory" when talking about science, I die a little inside. ? do you have no imagination whatsoever? big bang theory is just a theory, sorry bro The atomic theory is just a theory The theory of gravity is just a theory The germ theory of disease is just a theory Evolution is just a theory Saying "just a theory" when talking about science is probably the #1 thing you can do to expose your lack of understanding of science. Try again, bro.
"just a theory" can be used in several ways. it could be used in an ignorant way or in a way that is actually a deep understanding of how science works.
and big bang theory is just a theory, bro.
i assume you have a good understanding of physics. you know we dont have a really good theory about gravity, do you?
|
On July 11 2013 07:25 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:23 TritaN wrote:On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion. Every time someone says "just a theory" when talking about science, I die a little inside. ? do you have no imagination whatsoever? big bang theory is just a theory, sorry bro
The earth being of a spherical shape is just a fact, sorry bro.
Honestly, the point isn't that theories can't be disputed, of course they can. We are talking about scientific theory, the whole point of science is to question things and progress our knowledge. HOWEVER, you can't just dismiss a theory with the amazing argument "it's just a theory" because your understanding of a scientific theory is lacking. That's just not how it works.
If I have an argument and base it on a widely accepted scientific theory, you only really have one option: come up with a better theory which still conforms to all observable evidence, which supports your position instead of mine. That's how scientific theory works: You come up with a framework concerning certain observable phenomenon and you test it by prediction. If it all works out and people can't find holes in it, good job, you have a working theory. Now you can use it as a basis for argument, because unlike the people saying "bohoo you have no proof", you actually have a basis for your argument.
Saying "The Big Bang theory is just a theory" is about as strong of an argument as disputing someones experimental results by saying "Uh, you probably messed up the experiment". That's not how science works, if you want to disprove a conclusion from an experiment, you do the same or similar experiments which prove the opposite, you don't just disregard it out of hand.
Ps. I know you were probably being sarcastic, this is just my general comment on the topic.
|
On July 11 2013 07:33 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:31 TritaN wrote:On July 11 2013 07:25 beg wrote:On July 11 2013 07:23 TritaN wrote:On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion. Every time someone says "just a theory" when talking about science, I die a little inside. ? do you have no imagination whatsoever? big bang theory is just a theory, sorry bro The atomic theory is just a theory The theory of gravity is just a theory The germ theory of disease is just a theory Evolution is just a theory Saying "just a theory" when talking about science is probably the #1 thing you can do to expose your lack of understanding of science. Try again, bro. i assume you have a good understanding of physics. you know we dont have a really good theory about gravity, do you?
Wrong. Our theory of gravity, at least when talking about newtonian gravity as it relates to large objects, is rock solid. Its only when you get into quantum gravity that things get shaky.
If you want to run around going "hurf blurf everything's just a theory lololol0llol" then by all means you're free to do so, but you'll look like a child.
|
On July 11 2013 07:33 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:31 TritaN wrote:On July 11 2013 07:25 beg wrote:On July 11 2013 07:23 TritaN wrote:On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion. Every time someone says "just a theory" when talking about science, I die a little inside. ? do you have no imagination whatsoever? big bang theory is just a theory, sorry bro The atomic theory is just a theory The theory of gravity is just a theory The germ theory of disease is just a theory Evolution is just a theory Saying "just a theory" when talking about science is probably the #1 thing you can do to expose your lack of understanding of science. Try again, bro. "just a theory" can be used in several ways. it could be used in an ignorant way or in a way that is actually a deep understanding of how science works. and big bang theory is just a theory, bro. i assume you have a good understanding of physics. you know we dont have a really good theory about gravity, do you?
Saying "Just a Theory" implies that there is something higher than a scientific theory within science.
There isn't.
There is no higher level of understanding beyond something being labelled a scientific theory.
Scientific theories are a collection of scientific facts that encompass one topic. (Laymans terms)
Saying "its just a theory" when talking about scientific theories, is literally like saying something "is just a fact".
The only reason such scientific theories were ever even named as such (and not laws, facts, "proven theories"), is that the scientific community is never arrogant enough to claim to know everything about any topic.. We are always open to being disproved, or open to altering the theory if such evidence arises. Does any scientist believe the laws of gravity within the theory of gravity will change? no... Are they open to the idea that maybe some of it isn't exactly correct?.. Of course.. but most would dobt that possibility... Because it works. Bitches
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
