Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Critics
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 16 of 130 (202073)
04-25-2005 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by peaceharris
04-24-2005 6:56 AM


Poorly founded intuition vs numbers: numbers win
The density of the IGM is order of magnitude 1 particle for a cubic meter. We were throwing that number around in some other threads; it is a bit high but I'm feeling generous.
A light year is about 10^16 meters. A billion light years is a long way to look; and ten billion is getting to the limits of vision. So say the longest distance we see is about 10^26 meters. To do this, we have to get past about 10^26 particles per unit area.
Now the atmosphere has about 2.7*10^25 particles per cubic meter at sea level.
Looking through ten billion light years of IGM is about the same as looking through four meters of atmosphere. In fact, I suspect four meters of atmosphere is worse, as the particles involved are bigger.
Sorry, peaceharris. You are not even close to the ball park on this one.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-25-2005 04:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by peaceharris, posted 04-24-2005 6:56 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Funkaloyd, posted 04-25-2005 8:17 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 18 by peaceharris, posted 04-26-2005 11:05 PM Sylas has replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 130 (202118)
04-25-2005 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Sylas
04-25-2005 4:48 AM


Re: Poorly founded intuition vs numbers: numbers win
Just curious; is the average density significantly higher between stars in a galaxy, or inside a heliopause boundary?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Sylas, posted 04-25-2005 4:48 AM Sylas has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5587 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 18 of 130 (202867)
04-26-2005 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Sylas
04-25-2005 4:48 AM


Re: Poorly founded intuition vs numbers: numbers win
Sylas,
I made it clear in my previous post that I believe that there is very little material along our of sight if we can see an object clearly. By telling me that the density of the IGM is very low, you are agreeing with me. So why do you call it 'poorly founded intuition'?
The explanation given for the 'Lyman alpha forest' is that there are many clouds along our line of sight.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Lyman-alpha-forest.html
The point that I am making is this: The explanation of many clouds along our line of sight is nonsense due to the simple reason that it doesn't blur our vision.
To put in numbers, if you want to find out the number of particles along our line of sight, you have to do a summation for all the absorption lines.
Then you can do a comparison with well known dark clouds, such as the horsehead nebula. At the bottom left of the following image, you can see a bright star that is partly obscured by the clouds.
http://www.southdowns.org.uk/sdpt/orionwint.htm
Gaseous clouds are capable absorbing light. They are also capable of scattering light. So if you want to invoke absorption as an explanation for a certain phenomenon, you also need to realize that a natural corollary would be the scattering.
I strongly suspect that if you do a summation for all the Lyman absorption lines in the Lyman alpha forest, and compare it with the absorption of a well known dark cloud, the summation from the forest would be much much more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Sylas, posted 04-25-2005 4:48 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Sylas, posted 04-27-2005 2:56 AM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 20 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-27-2005 8:12 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 19 of 130 (202906)
04-27-2005 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by peaceharris
04-26-2005 11:05 PM


Re: Poorly founded intuition vs numbers: numbers win
I made it clear in my previous post that I believe that there is very little material along our of sight if we can see an object clearly. By telling me that the density of the IGM is very low, you are agreeing with me. So why do you call it 'poorly founded intuition'?
Because of your presentation of this as some kind of refutation of Eta’s perfectly conventional description of consequences from basic physics in the tired light thread.
In this thread, Eta explained that the typical photon gets across the IGM without ever hitting a particle. He's right. This is demonstrated by lack of blurring in distant images. This also rules out particle interactions as a way of giving rise to the cosmological redshift, because the cosmological redshift works smoothly over the whole spectrum. This means that the particle interaction model of various tired light advocates is a total non-starter.
And yet, in response to general comments about lack of scattering in this thread, you brought in a quote from the tired light thread you had found some kind of inconsistency with the conventional physics of Lyman-alpha absorption lines!
For reference, you quoted Message 287. Others may like to look it up. It's a good post, as are the other explanations provided in that thread. And yet somehow, you seem to think comments about scattering in this thread have some applicability as a refutation of Eta's physics in that thread! Indeed, your post concluded with the bizarre non-sequitur: "So you can rest assured that the excuse given for not being able to see the Lyman-beta line is nonsense."
Eta got a bit testy at such a response, which is understandable; particularly when it dragged in an unlinked quoted from an old thread, repeated here with no apparent understanding of the argument. I know it is aggravating. Eta really is an expert, and we're lucky to have him.
Some of the admins, including myself, like to lean on Eta now and again to see if we can get him to calm down a bit, and spend more time explaining carefully and in patient detail for general readership precisely why an argument like yours is wrong; without worrying about any failure to convince you in particular. The game is not to give up when the obtuse fail to be convinced. The game is to explain with a wry grin and gentle good humour enough basic physics for the rest of us capable of learning, so that we can all share in a belly laugh. That is a valuable contribution.
Basically, absorption is highly preferential. The typical photon has no problem. But if a photon has a wavelength of 1216 Angstroms, neutral hydrogen absorbs the photon very effectively indeed. Send light through a good sized cloud of neutral hydrogen, and that wavelength is removed, giving a dark line in the spectrum.
Furthermore, photon wavelength increases as they travel through expanding space. There is a window of opportunity during its long journey when a photon is at those special frequencies where hydrogen is opaque. If there just happens to be a cloud of hydrogen over that small fraction of the journey where the photon is at 1216 Angstroms, (or one of the other particular wavelengths in the Lyman alpha or beta absorption lines) then that photon has lost the lottery, and is likely to be absorbed.
That's why you get an alpha Lyman forest, and also forests for the other absorption lines. A photon that survives at the Lyman-beta wavelength can still get absorbed later at the longer Lyman-alpha wavelengths, and that is why the beta lines can get lost in the noise.
Your final comment:
I strongly suspect that if you do a summation for all the Lyman absorption lines in the Lyman alpha forest, and compare it with the absorption of a well known dark cloud, the summation from the forest would be much much more.
Surreal! Summing a "forest". What a concept. It is as if you don't even recognize that it is a forest; a recognizable set of discrete absorption lines.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-27-2005 03:09 AM
{Adminnemooseus note: After a fair effort, I managed to track down (in message 12) what "IGM" means. It is "intergalactic medium". It would be nice if such abreviations would be defined at least once in every message they are used in.}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-27-2005 03:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by peaceharris, posted 04-26-2005 11:05 PM peaceharris has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4365 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 20 of 130 (202936)
04-27-2005 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by peaceharris
04-26-2005 11:05 PM


**** Cross sections ****
I repeat, think cross sections. Find a plot of the absorption coefficients versus frequency for hydrogen.
That is all you need to realise what is going on here and what is not.
(Note: A dark galactic cloud such as the Horsehead nebula has nothing to do with the absorbers responsible for the Lyman Alpha forest. They are alike neither in scale or physical properties or chemical makeup)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by peaceharris, posted 04-26-2005 11:05 PM peaceharris has not replied

  
chark
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 130 (206618)
05-09-2005 9:58 PM


simple speculation
Sorry to interupt your current argument but I have a theory on precisely how the Big Bang happened. (You might have read this before on another forum) I do not have much of an in depth study of physics so this theory come purely from simple physical laws. I like to stray from ideas of time shift and singularity.
I posted something in a different forum about how energy still has the properties of gravity which is the basis of my speculation:
(energy has gravity)"I believe it does but we can not effectively measure it since one atom contains in the upper billions of joules of energy and since we can not contain large enough amounts of energy to equal the corresponding amount of matter (according to E=mc2) in a large enough quanity to measure its gravity, I don't know of any current way to measure "the gravity of energy" outside of knowing the exact amounts of matter and energy in our sun. But if energy does emit gravity then that could help answer questions about dark matter. Dark matter is the made up factor in wide scale physics. I am saying that dark matter is actually light matter. That is all of the light, heat, and radiation energy in the universe (or gravitational vicinity) that is throwing off calculations."
Outside my light matter idea I applied this to the Big Bang and black holes. Black holes have a large amount of matter in a small amount of space (I prefer to beleive the center of a black hole is made up of broken apart neutrons) and its escape velocity is equal to are greater than the speed of light. So I thought about how an object could escape a black hole and I did not come up with a way. If nothing could escape a black hole how did the Big Bang happen. The Big Bang contracts and expands over and over again correct. Well once it starts contracting the center of the universe contains a black hole long before all of the matter reaches the center. Therefore the Big Bang is the destruction of a universe sized black hole. This is where energy's gravity comes into play. A normal sized black hole is contsantly absorbing light, heat, and radiation energy and they are all going at the speed of light. The speed of light is also fast enough to maintain an orbit around the center of gravity in the black hole. Once enough energy is orbiting the black hole the gravity will switch to the outside of the black hole rather than the inside causing it to fall apart in an explosion, "a small bang". If a black hole is formed in the center of the universe before all of the mass and energy reach it, it is possible that a Big Bang could occur. The energy created from the Big Bang would break apart the remaining mass in the universe back into hydrogen such as studies show, starting the universe process all over again.

  
Ingvar
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 130 (208701)
05-16-2005 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sylas
02-05-2005 10:19 PM


Hi, Sylas and all other interested,
-
I hope that you will find lots of answers with my unifying theory that solves most of the questions and paradoxes and anomalies in the modern physics. My unifying theory implies indirect but objective critics.
Right now I am preparing papers for ESOF to send before 15 June -05.
-
Thereafter I will update my web-site with more and new interesting explanations about Poud-Rebka's misinterpretation of their measurings. I have found a spectral analyse reference that proves my calculations and my derivations.
and
I will show explanations of the mistake to compare Lyman-redshift and Balmer-redshift as the same z-value. It is the redshift fraction's value that counts.
and
I will give a more complete explanation to the Pioneers' anomalous acceleration. It is a funny and simple solution.
I have participated and lectured at five international conferences, and at the NPA's conference 2000, Tom van Flandern told me that I would hurt the science and the colleagues if I succeeded to publish my theory. It was a fine compliment, but his understatement was right, no one dares to publish it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sylas, posted 02-05-2005 10:19 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Ingvar, posted 05-16-2005 3:09 PM Ingvar has not replied

  
Ingvar
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 130 (208702)
05-16-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Ingvar
05-16-2005 3:00 PM


PS
Excuse me, I thought that my web-address was presented automatically.
So to them who don't search for it behind my "profile", look at: The Unified Theory of Physics
Ingvar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Ingvar, posted 05-16-2005 3:00 PM Ingvar has not replied

  
LA Buck
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 130 (243952)
09-15-2005 9:33 PM


Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
I would argue that The Big Bang/Evolution Theory
is a religion and not a science.
Re-li-gion (n):
a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power regarded as creator and governor of the universe
Re-ver-ence (n):
a feeling of profound awe and respect
Su-per-nat-u-ral (adj):
attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
Gov-ern (v):
To control the speed or magnitude of
To control the actions or behavior of
To keep under control; to restrain
To exercise a deciding or determining influence on
That means that any religion, by definition, is . .
” A belief in a power that violated or went beyond natural forces in order to create the universe.
” And that power continues to keep control of the actions and behavior of the universe.
” And that power exercises deciding or determining influence on the universe.
” We think of that power with deep appreciation, awe, and respect
Take out the word “power” and put in “Big Bang/Evolution.” Re-read the definition.
Take out the word “power” and put in “God.” Re-read the definition.
They are equal in definition.
They are both a theory for the origin of the universe.
They are both a religion.
Neither one is a science.
(p.s.) “violated or went beyond natural forces” . is there ANY other time in history that this BANG took place? Was it ever duplicated? On any scale? If it was a one time event, never seen before or since, then it went beyond natural forces.
Why is neither one a science?
Sci-ence (n):
The observation, identification, description, and experimental investigation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study:
An activity that appears to require study and method
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
That means that science, by definition is . .
” Knowledge.
” Knowledge that is gained through observation, experimentation, and investigation.
” Knowledge that is methodically demonstrated and studied.
We’ve even devised a 5-Step procedure that can be applied in order to obtain “science.”
We call it The Scientific Method:
Step 1. State the Problem
Step 2. Gather information
Step 3. Form a hypothesis
Step 4. Test Hypothesis
Step 5. Draw a conclusion
Let’s apply The Big Bang/Evolution Theory to this Scientific Method of obtaining knowledge.
Step 1. State the Problem
“How was the universe created?”
Step 2. Gather information
We can study every known substance in today’s universe
We can study traces of history left embedded in the universe that gives clues to the past
Step 3. Form a hypothesis
From these findings we make the “guess” that there must have been an enormous explosion of gases that kick-started our universe. We have every good reason to believe that this happened this way. So, on to Step 4 .
Step 4. Test Hypothesis
OOPS! We have to leave this one blank. There is no way to TEST our hypothesis to see that it actually was an EXPLOSION that started our universe. It may be a really good, educated guess based on the info collected in Step 3, but there is no way to SCIENTIFICALLY TEST that our guess is correct
Step 5. Draw a conclusion
Here’s the problem . we have somehow decided that this theory, this guess, despite the fact that it cannot be proved, MUST BE SCIENCE. We’ve conveniently skipped over Step 4 and drawn a conclusion anyway! And then we actually have the nerve to go even further and base all our future science education on this faulty foundation of guesswork.
Now .
What makes this particular theory or guess so unique is the fact that is all about the creation of the universe and the power that continues to control it.
Once again, that leads me back to the definition of religion.
Remember, a religion is a respected belief in a power that created and controls the universe. But religion does not operate on the scientific method, it operates on faith.
What is faith?
Faith (n):
” Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
” Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
” Loyalty to a person or thing
” The body of dogma of a religion (it’s teachings)
” A set of principles or beliefs.
That means that faith, by definition, is .
A confident belief in an idea that does not rely on logical (scientific) proof or physical evidence. And if you are loyal to that idea and subscribe to it’s teachings, if you believe in it’s set of principles, then you are operating out of FAITH . NOT SCIENCE!!!
Because The Big Bang Theory cannot be tested it must be classified as a theory.
Because it is a theory based on the origin of the universe is must be a religion.
Because it is a religion, if you believe it, you have faith in it.
The theory that God created the universe is a theory.
It cannot be scientifically tested.
Because it is a theory about the origin of the universe, it too is classified as a religion.
Because it is a religion, if you believe God created the universe, that is faith.
Big Bang/Evolution and Creationism are BOTH religions held to by FAITH!
Now if you want to pit The Big Bang Theory/Evolution against Creation by God in the FAITH arena... well, that’s a whole new discussion!!!!

L.A.Buck

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Chiroptera, posted 09-15-2005 9:50 PM LA Buck has not replied
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 09-15-2005 9:57 PM LA Buck has replied
 Message 27 by cavediver, posted 09-15-2005 10:32 PM LA Buck has replied
 Message 28 by Rahvin, posted 09-16-2005 12:38 PM LA Buck has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 130 (243959)
09-15-2005 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by LA Buck
09-15-2005 9:33 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
quote:
Step 1. State the Problem
“How was the universe created?”
Nope. Big Bang is not an answer to the question "How was the universe created?" Big Bang is a description of the very early universe, based on current observations that the universe is expanding. Big Bang is a model of the conditions of the early, hot, dense universe, along with the description of the conditions of the current universe that is a result of that hot, dense state.
-
quote:
Step 2. Gather information
We can study every known substance in today’s universe
We can study traces of history left embedded in the universe that gives clues to the past
I like this. Pay special attention to that last sentence. Not all scenarios are consistent with the universe that we observe today. That allows us to eliminate a lot of possibilities.
-
quote:
Step 3. Form a hypothesis
From these findings we make the “guess” that there must have been an enormous explosion of gases that kick-started our universe. We have every good reason to believe that this happened this way.
This is false. We do not know how that universe began; in fact, our current laws of physics work only after about 10^(-40) of a second after the singularity. We do not know the exact conditions of the universe during that first 10^(-40) of a second. After that time, we have a pretty good understanding (but not yet perfect) of what the universe was like by running the expansion of the universe backwards and using our understanding of the laws of physics.
-
quote:
Step 4. Test Hypothesis
OOPS! We have to leave this one blank. There is no way to TEST our hypothesis to see that it actually was an EXPLOSION that started our universe.
Oops! You goofed! According to the "Big Bang" model, the universe was very hot and dense. Since it was hot, there must have been a very hot "black body" thermal radiation. As the universe expanded, this radiation would have "cooled" to microwave radiation. Sure enough, after this prediction was made, the Cosmic Microwave Background was discovered. Step 4. isn't exactly a blank slate after all, eh? And, of course, there are other tests, too, like the proportion of helium to hydrogen that we see in the current universe.
-
quote:
Step 5. Draw a conclusion
I'm not sure where you get "step 5", but step 5 in real science is to continue to collect data, and use this data to refine the model. That is what has been happening over the last many decades.
So, the Big Bang model is pretty good science: it is based on actual data, it makes predictions that are observed, and it is further refined and "corrected" as new data is discovered...just like any other science. No "faith" is required to accept it, just the faith that our senses can be reasonably trusted, and that logic is sufficient to tease out the truth from the evidence that is gathered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by LA Buck, posted 09-15-2005 9:33 PM LA Buck has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 26 of 130 (243961)
09-15-2005 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by LA Buck
09-15-2005 9:33 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
LA Buck writes:
I would argue that The Big Bang/Evolution Theory
is a religion and not a science.
Big bang is a theory from cosmology. Evolution is a theory of biological diversity. These are two quite separate theories from two different sciences.
If you want people to take your arguments seriously, it is best to start with some study. That way you won't make huge mistakes (such as treating two entirely different theories as if they are one theory).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by LA Buck, posted 09-15-2005 9:33 PM LA Buck has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by LA Buck, posted 09-16-2005 10:54 PM nwr has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 27 of 130 (243979)
09-15-2005 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by LA Buck
09-15-2005 9:33 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
There are two things you should know about the Big Bang...
1) It wasn't a bang
and
2) It wasn't very big
Read the opening chapter to Terry Pratchett's The Light Fantastic for a much more appropriate idea of Big Bang...
I like your scientific methodology steps, but they are not correct for the "Big Bang theory". I cannot blame you for this, given that just about every popular science depiction of the big bang is hopelessly incorrect.
Big Bang theory does not start from observation, it starts from Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (GR). GR is our theory of how space and time work. It's very good... it gets just about everything right that we throw at it and passes the most stringent of scientific tests.
Einstein asked of GR what the universe was like. The mathematics of GR told Einstein that the universe was expanding, and expanding from an initial point known as a singularity. Einstein thought that this was silly, so fiddled the mathematics a little to get something with which he was happy... a non-expanding universe.
However, a little later the world discovered that the universe is expanding, and Einstein's original solution was dusted off and brought forward as the theory of the universe. Einstein famously called his previous fiddling his "greatest mistake".
So, the mathematics of GR tells us that there was an initial singularity from which the universe expanded. Now, GR is exceptionally well tested, but we're not so confident as to take its predictions for the entire universe to heart without some extra evidence.
Fortunately, this model of the universe makes some nice predictions, such as the relative abundances of the light elements and the existence of an "afterglow" of an event known as recombination that would have occured about 300,000yrs after the initial expansion. The abundance predictions are consistent with observation and the "afterglow" was famously discovered in 1964 by Pezias and Wilson.
Notice that I have mentioned no bang nor anything that is big... I did mention a singularity, and that space would be very hot during its initial expansion. That is all.
Now, does the above fit your steps one to five any better?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by LA Buck, posted 09-15-2005 9:33 PM LA Buck has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by LA Buck, posted 09-16-2005 10:42 PM cavediver has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 28 of 130 (244148)
09-16-2005 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by LA Buck
09-15-2005 9:33 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
Cavediver made an excellend post describing the actual statements of Big Bang theory.
But your post also shows that you don't seem to have any clue what a scientific theory is, as opposed to a layman's use of the word.
A theory is not something that "cannot be tested."
A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, and after multiple attempts at falsification by many groups, it becomes a theory when it becomes widely accepted as a highly accurate description of the natural world.
To even reach the hypothesis stage, an educated guess must have certain properties.
It must describe a mechanism. In the case of the Big bang, we are describing the mechanism by which the universe is seen to be expanding, and extrapolating to the first moments of the universe.
If must make predictions based on that mechanism. Big Bang theory makes certain predictions about what we should see with regards to the chemical makeup of our universe, as well as astronomical predictions and predictions regarding the presence and structure of the microwave background radiation.
It must be testable. We can look at the universe and see if it matches the predictions of the hypothesis. If it does not match the predictions, the hypothesis is falsified and we need to start over. The chemical composition of the universe, the presence and structure of the microwave background , and every astronomical observation ever made fit with the predictions of Big Bang theory. Not one has falsified it.
Since the Big Bang theory has not been falsified despite rigorous attempts to do so, and now carries the weight of substantial evidence and makes accurate predictions regarding the universe, it has become widely accepted by scientists as a highly accurate description of reality. In other words, it has become a theory.
As you can see, when you stated that
The Big Bang Theory cannot be tested it must be classified as a theory.
and
Because it is a theory based on the origin of the universe is must be a religion.
As I and Cavediver have pointed out, the Big Bang theory can and has been tested.
Your second statement is simply rubbish. Theories regarding the oigin of the universe do not automatically constitute religion. You provided one of the definitions for the word "religion." Here are the others:
quote:
re·li·gion
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Note that there are entirely different definitions for religion. Also note that your own definition does not cover the Big Bang - no "supernatural power or powers" are involved. No "creator" being is involved. The Big Bang is entirely inside the realm of the natural universe.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by LA Buck, posted 09-15-2005 9:33 PM LA Buck has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by LA Buck, posted 09-16-2005 10:25 PM Rahvin has replied

  
LA Buck
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 130 (244266)
09-16-2005 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rahvin
09-16-2005 12:38 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
You're right I am a layman.
A layman who is handed a state authorized science textbook in class and told by state ordained "professionals" that the Big Bang is how the universe came into being.
A layman who is told that any other theory is ridiculous, ignorant, or delusional.
A layman who is concerned for the thousands of students in this country who are fed this inaccurate info!!
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Again, based on webster's definition, a theory is still a POSSIBLE explaination for a group of facts.
All the science- the observing, the testing, etc- is still only testing what remains and then deriving a highly educated speculation of the how.
I do not disagree with the testing results, only in the conclusions drawn and the leaps made that this MUST be the way the universe began.
This seems to be backwards reasoning:
I study A,B,C at length, use it to formulate D then use D to explain A,B,C.
I study light, time, space intricately, elaborately, use the results to formulate a theory of a "Big Bang," and then say that light, time, and space are a result of a "Big Bang."
And no matter how you package it...studied, educated, hypothesis widely accepted, etc...it is STILL just a guess!
Please, let's call it what it is!
Maybe the only authorized, accepted, taught guess...BUT STILL A GUESS!
That's what they say about the theory that God created the universe!
I just think it's fair to lump TBB in with it!
My ire comes from the fact that is is touted as FACT!
I am, however, wowed by Chiroptera's statement and, as a layman, will have to look into this.
"We do not know how that universe began; in fact, our current laws of physics work only after about 10^(-40) of a second after the singularity. We do not know the exact conditions of the universe during that first 10^(-40) of a second. After that time, we have a pretty good understanding (but not yet perfect) of what the universe was like by running the expansion of the universe backwards and using our understanding of the laws of physics."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rahvin, posted 09-16-2005 12:38 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2005 6:56 AM LA Buck has not replied
 Message 53 by Rahvin, posted 09-19-2005 11:59 AM LA Buck has not replied
 Message 54 by Chiroptera, posted 09-19-2005 1:12 PM LA Buck has not replied

  
LA Buck
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 130 (244267)
09-16-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by cavediver
09-15-2005 10:32 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
I'm intrigued.
You said:
"The mathematics of GR told Einstein that the universe was expanding, and expanding from an initial point known as a singularity."
"So, the mathematics of GR tells us that there was an initial singularity from which the universe expanded. Now, GR is exceptionally well tested, but we're not so confident as to take its predictions for the entire universe to heart without some extra evidence.
Fortunately, this model of the universe makes some nice predictions..."
This INITIAL SINGULARITY.
What my textbook calls The Big Bang?
Why can't the theory "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" BE that initial singularity?
Why is the fact that the universe is expanding be regarded as "growing, evolving, improving"
Why can't it be that it's like my bubble gum where expanding equals stretching, weaking, thinning, HEADED for a Big Bang not STARTED from one?
Doesn't all nature demonstrate that everything dies and decays?
GR may indeed demonstrate that this universe came from one source,
who are we to say that that Source isn't GOD?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by cavediver, posted 09-15-2005 10:32 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 09-16-2005 11:37 PM LA Buck has not replied
 Message 34 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2005 5:52 AM LA Buck has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024