Prev: Hilbert’s Entscheidungsproblem: To decide whether a sentence is TRUE or whether it is PROVABLE?
Next: Unsolvability of the Entscheidungsproblem as a Corollary of Gödel’s 2nd Theorem
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 31 May 2010 12:19


Net-Teams, wrote:
> re: I often wonder whether physicists who love their Big Bang ever
> really think about what they have accepted.
>
> Archimedes, I wonder if they "think" at all... When I hear things like
> "Now that we know.." instead of "We currently believe..", I can help
> thinking "They haven't got a clue!"

Yes, thanks for that insight. I never really payed much attention to
"bad science
reporting" and their shameful use of the words "Now that we know..."

I believe in the essence of science truth is that it becomes easier
and easier
to reduce and simplify the arguement. What I mean is that through the
past
2 decades from 1990 to 2010, I have been arguing in book length for
the
Atom Totality theory listing numerous supporting evidence, but why
list more
and more evidence when the truth needs only one piece of evidence to
win
over the Big Bang.

Why write a 500 page book, when the truth requires just the simple
fact that
the Microwave Radiation is blackbody at 2.71 Kelvin. Only inside an
atom
can you have blackbody. Hence, demise of Big Bang, welcome in the Atom
Totality.

When you find the truth in science, you need not have to build a
mountain of
supports. Rather, the truth wants you to go in the opposite direction
by showing
that in a paragraph, one supporting evidence conquers.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
 whole entire Universe is just one big atom
 where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Hilbert’s Entscheidungsproblem: To decide whether a sentence is TRUE or whether it is PROVABLE?
Next: Unsolvability of the Entscheidungsproblem as a Corollary of Gödel’s 2nd Theorem