I simply didn't know what you meant by this:galundrux wrote:Why do you ask silly questions like this when the answer was right there? I said " Add any force that attracts one thing to another.", it was even in the same paragraph just as you wanted.
As I said, I didn't know what you meant by "For atoms, it's taking parts from other atoms". I don't understand what it means for atoms to take parts from other atoms. I therefore didn't know what you meant when you appeared to say that gravity also takes parts from other atoms. If you simply mean that gravity is an attractive force, fine. That's cleared up now.For atoms, it's taking parts from other atoms, not sure what that force is called either, electromagnetism? Gravity does the same thing.
Near the start of your OP you stated that you are "starting to think that maybe the big bang was a mistake" and you went on to mention the Big Bang several times. I therefore assumed that you had some theory as to why the Big Bang is an incorrect description of the large scale behaviour of the Universe. I assumed that this theory would appeal to evidence, by saying something like: "The Big Bang is incorrect because it is inconsistent with the following observations...". I couldn't spot anything anywhere in what you said that looked like such a theory. That's why I was trying to get you to clarify it.
So, for any theory which attempts to describe observed reality, such as the Big Bang, how would you go about assessing its validity if not by looking at the evidence for and against it? For example, if I had a theory that most cats are black, wouldn't you naturally expect me to point to some cats? To provide some empirical evidence for my claim?if the body of scientific work has something that invalidates what I say then that is great to know, but saying that there is no scientific evidence for this or that, that is not an argument nor a clarification.