Thanks, CalMeacham. I saw the pic of Mimas in the Great Astronomer’s link. Stunning! First time I’d seen it. Frightening, if you think about it. Do I take it, then, that a Death Star was an armed (the “laser port”: that must have been one BIG laser! How did they purport to power it?) asteroid?
(I am not big on movies, although I vaguely recall seeing some parts of the Lucas Arts flick Star Wars.)
No, I don’t know Alan Guth, but you are of course right that he meant 10[sup]-24[/sup], not 10[sup]24[/sup].
Why would you want to? Well, possible because many people here (see above posts) don’t believe you understand it. I think it was that “happened far away from Earth” comment that first arouse doubt. And if you want to be taken seriously at all (and get into an actual debate about why this is totally fucking un-Consititional) people would at least like to know they’re debating the same thing you are.
I guess you STILL aren’t going to tell us what you know about the Big Bang Theory.
I think he either SeaSed or busted. 
How is superstring (or any other string) theory even remotely at odds with what we KNOW about the big bang?
I can see saying that string theory competes with the standard model as it stands… Uh, more appropriately could stand to supercede the standard model(hence, show that it is a limited case proposition).
None the less, any new physics theory will ABSOLUTELY have to fit the known observable facts.
Steady state theory would be a good theory to put at odds with the big bang… at least they are discussing the same things.
Wow. That’s interesting. I thought I was looking at an up to date version of the thread, when actually I missed a whole bunch of posts.
And yet my comment is still relevant because he still hasn’t.
Whoa there scotth, before we get into anything complicated like interpretation of facts and theories, we have to know that Sea Sorbust actually has something more than a butter-slippery grasp on those facts. As of yet, the jury’s still out on that one.
I was hoping that answering my questions for himself would make clear what a poor grasp he has on this…
I had already supposed that hoping my post might IMPROVE that grasp was beyond anything I could really expect.
SS: I think people have taken this topic as seriously as it was presented. You want the big bang theory banned, and yet you give no reason for this other than you think it is wrong. You are unable to explain why the BBT is wrong, or even explain what it is in the first place. You also have failed to give good reason for Congress stepping in and banning any theory, even assuming it is wrong. Your position is poorly thought out and people are mocking you because of it. Is that really such a big surprise? If it is, then welcome to the SDMB.
Thank you, Dr. Lao. I very much appreciate your welcome. 
Sea Sorbust wrote:
Actually, Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to “outlaw” such research.
They can withhold Federal funding from research institutions where genetic/cloning research is taking place. They can refuse to give out Federal “feel good” science awards to persons working in specific areas of research. They can outlaw the sale of genetically-modified food, or of cloning services.
But they cannot outlaw the research itself.
(This is not to say that State governments can’t outlaw particular kinds of research, provided their own State Constitution doesn’t forbid such laws. But the Federal government does not have such power.)
Sea Sorbust wrote:
Well, now! If that doesn’t qualify as rock-solid evidence against Big Bang cosmology, I don’t know what does! 
Ah, well, actually, tracer, to no small extent what I (at least partially) had in mind when I posted that Quote, was your post on the Constitution. As in: The wonderous splendors of a Union of semi-independent States, joined under a contract with its authorized powers carefully divided and delineated.
Here’s a thought, tho: What if some State did outlaw, say, the BBTh? Since the United States is bound to both enforce the First Ammendment and insure a republican form of government to each of the States**:** “Could the United States allow such a law to stand?”
When you say “Outlaw the Big Bang theory”, do you mean “Outlaw its teaching in public schools?”
Actually, Captain Amazing, I didn’t really have any particular thing in mind at all.
What I was originally worried about was that the BBTh had increasingly assumed the status of “cult” or even “religion” and that it’s HUGE popularity (in the media, among teachers and school-kids: very “glitzy” science-stuff) was squashing any similar research (at least in the public eye). Maybe even some co-lateral kinds of research. Certainly the science-book budgets of the public libraries.
I don’t know how to answer your question. 
Sounds sort of incompetent on my part, I know; but there it is.
Oh I guess I was just confused by this thread, because it’s kind of hard for the government to outlaw scientific theories. So, is your actual point just a lament that most people have accepted the big bang theory rather than some other theory of the beginning of the universe? Is it to debate whether the big bang theory is correct or not? I’m just asking because it seems like your references to gov’t bans and such have confused people as to what the actual subject of the thread is.
So . . . this whole thread has been for naught, it seems. Sea Sorbust, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no way we’re going to.
Truer words were never spoken.