Quote:
Originally Posted by rcglinsk
What's confusing me is how all that amounts to a prima facie case that there was a big bang. Everyone on this thread and all the science papers writers talk about it as if it were a real thing. It's like the alpha-omega self sustaining dynamo. People talk about that happening in the earth and making our magnetic field, but any time someone tries to make a magnetic field without electric current or a bar magnet in a laboratory it doesn't work. I meant the questions to find out what people think the prima facie case for the big bang is. If you know the prima facie case for the self sustaining dynamo I'd be all for hearing that as well.
|
(bold added)
I think several of those who have posted in this thread, as well as many of the "science paper writers" will be astonished, amazed, angry, bemused, ... to read this. I know I am.
In fact, I thought
Ken G (to take but one example) took great care to draw a bright line between the theories and the "
real thing"!
So, once again, the disconnect seems to be between what you are looking for wrt science and "
prima facie case[s]" and the way science - including astrophysics - is actually done.