|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Starlight Within a Young Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Confidence writes: Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Notice that there is a beginning to time itself, probably because it is closely related with matter and space. But remember that in the Humphrey's cosmology there are multiple times of reference, but God uses earth's point of reference for time. Excuse me, but so what? Leaving aside the technical discussion of the ideas at hand (which I will leave to those with strong knowledge of the field), it has yet to be shown that the Bible is in any way a reliable decription of what occured. This is an unfounded assumption on the part of Humphreys and yourself from which all else follows. This makes for very poor science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6348 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
So Humphreys' argumetn was never any good in the first place, and there is good circumstantial evidence against it - which he is ignoring. Hardly the mark of good scientific work. I think you miss the argument. If the universe really is as old as you claim, you will need a HUGE reservoir for all these comets. They should have been observed by now. However, we do not. So since comets do not last longer than a few thousand years, where is their source? Remember he is coming from a creationists point of view, where our solar system is fairly young. This point he raises is a reasonable one, for Creationists can explain why we still observe comets if the solar system is young. And what 'good circumstantial evidence' might that be? That we have not observed any comets yet? Or that we have observed large objects which do not represent comets, but there must be comets near by? And this is the 'mark' of better science? Maybe I'm just confused and ignorant, I am a Creationist... Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ * Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No, the argument is clear - Humphreys claims that there are no comets in the Kuiper belt, and therefore no source for short-term comets. But Humphreys has given no valid reason to suppose that there are no comets in the Kuiper Belt.
quote: The age of the Universe is irrelevant - it is only the substnatially younger age of the solar system that matters.
quote:So your argument is that we should have seen something that is too small to see even with current instruments. Obviously we should NOT see them, whether they are there or not. quote: That we have observed larger objects of course. Larger objects are less common than small objects - consider the asteroid belt for example. Consider how many meteors hit the Earth's atmsophere compared with the number of really large meteorites. Thus if we see larger objects it is a reaonable inference that smaller objects are also there, unless there is a good reason to suppose otherwise. In the Kuiper Belt there is no such reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6348 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
See next reply
Edited by Confidence, : No reason given. Edited by Confidence, : No reason given. Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ * Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6348 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
So your argument is that we should have seen something that is too small to see even with current instruments. Obviously we should NOT see them, whether they are there or not. I admit, that it is poor science to conclude something based on lack of evidence. But the evidence we see today does fit with a young age for our solar system. So the point is still relevant, but we cannot deduce that there are no comets, and you are totally right on that.
Larger objects are less common than small objects - consider the asteroid belt for example. Consider how many meteors hit the Earth's atmsophere compared with the number of really large meteorites. Here is a point that I can use in my favour. Your logic is that the larger objects mean that there are more smaller objects of the same type. So the Kuiper belt with its many known large objects, which do not consists of known comets, must therefore have a multitude of smaller objects. However, based on your logic, these smaller objects will be of the same non-comet type material. Again, this is not enough to say there will never be comets observed. But to say that comets do exist there is likewise a un-scientific assumption Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ * Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
What predictions does Humphrey's model give us about Helium/Hydrogen/Deuterium ratios? How many families of neutrinos does it require to work? How many photons in the background radiation field compared with protons and neutrons should there be if his model is right?
What reason does the big bang have over choosing the no center/no edge? You ask that question, and it is fair. The answer is that the big bang model gives us concrete answers for the above questions (and a lot more too) that align with what evidence we have managed to collect. No other cosmological model has been able to give answers to these questions which didn't require significant fudging.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but you are not making it easy. The argument is based on misrepresenting the situation. The lack of observations is due to technical limitations and has nothign to do with the presence or absence of comets. Therefore it is consistent with ANY age for the solar system. It is not relevant evidence.It is not a good point, it is either a dreadful error or an intentional misrepresentation. quote: You misrepresent my point. I nowehre made the invalid assumption that the material composition of the objects present must be identical. Since a comet is composed of quite normal materials there is no good reason to suppose that they are absent. (Indeed, for all I know the larger objects do contain these substances - I have not investigated that matter).
quote: Which of course is not what I have been saying. My point is that Hummphrey's argument is worthless because it takes our inability to observe something as a good reason to assume that it is not there. In fact, given the other evidence of age, it would be scientifically valid to assume that the Kuiper belt is a source of comets. It is the expanation which best fits the evidence. Humphreys on the other hand takes a piece of non-evidence, puffs it up with false significance and asserts that we should ignore all the genuine evidence of age. THAT is not only unscientific, but anti-scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The comet thing is a good question. The question is, since short period comets will last only a few tens of thousands of years, and if the solar system is over four billion years old, why do we still see short period comets?
One possible answer is that the solar system is actually less than a few tens of thousands of years old, and so there hasn't been enough time for all the short period comets to disappear. However, that proposal has to be rejected based on evidence in geology, biology, and astrophysics. The solar system is several billion years old. That is just the way it is. The mysterious phenomenon of short period comets do not make all the other evidence in geology, biology, and astrophysics go away. The evidence is quite conclusive; the earth, the solar system, and the universe are more than four billion years old; this thing about comets do not outweigh all the other evidence. I know you probably don't like that, but that is the way it is. The evidence is there, so whatever the meaning of the existence of short period comets, the meaning is not that the solar system is less than a few tens of thousands of years old. At most it is an interesting puzzle to be solved, but not evidence that the universe is young. So, another solution is that there is a source of short period comets. The question now becomes what is the source. The Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt were proposed. According to the hypothesis, these comets were formed with the rest of the solar system, but have spent most of their time in the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt, safely far from the sun to be preserved for billions of years. Then, when the sun passes relatively near another star or gas cloud, the gravitational perturbations change the orbits of the comets, allowing them to appear in the inner solar system. What evidence do we have that the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt exist? Well, the main evidence is that we do see short period comets, and there is no other reasonable explanation. No other source of short period comets is consistent with what we know about the solar system, and certainly the hypothesis that the solar system is only a few thousand years old is not consistent with what we know about the solar system. You may not like hearing that, but that is the way it is. But another good piece of evidence is that computer programs that model the formation of the solar system actually show that something like the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt can form. So not only is the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt consistent with what is known about the solar system, but they actually seem form naturally given what we know about the laws of physics. Another piece of evidence is that given what we know must be true about the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt (from computer models and from the distribution of the parameters of cometary orbits), and what we know about the solar system as it is, we can make predictions as to how many objects of what sorts of sizes at what sorts of distances these objects should be. We are now in the stages where we can begin to look for objects which have the characteristics predicted to exist by the models. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
you will need a HUGE reservoir for all these comets. They should have been observed by now. The Kuiper Belt is that HUGE reservoir for short-period comets, and it's been observed to the tune of about a thousand objects. All the objects observed so far are maybe 100km or larger in diameter - they're COAL BLACK and about four billion kilometers away, so that even the 2000km diameter ones take astoundlingly sensitive equipment to find 'em. The size distribution of the ones we have found is similar to the size distribution of the thousand main-belt asteroids that were known by 1920 or so: a few big, more medium, lots of smallish. In the last twenty years - during which all the Kuiper Belt objects were discovered - another 100,000 or so main-belt asteroids have been found. They have a size distribution, too: oodles of tiny ones and scads and bunches of itsy-bitsy ones. The size distribution follows the equation that describes the first thousand. The Itsy-Bitsys are as faint as the Smallish KBO's. This means that we can't see the small objects in the Kuiper Belt with current technology - they're too dim. It means that we can make the reasonable inference that there are Smalls, Littles, Tinies, and Itsy-Bitsies out there, because there's nothing to keep the known KBO size distribution from continuing to those sizes. And this is borne out by our seeing stray Tinys and such that we refer to as short-period comets. We have yet to see our first Oort Cloud object - they're fifty times as far away as Kuipers. But we see long-period comets from there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6348 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
What predictions does Humphrey's model give us I do not know.It does predict we are in the center. And observed quantized redshifts seem to support this. You ask that question, and it is fair. The answer is that the big bang model gives us concrete answers for the above questions (and a lot more too) that align with what evidence we have managed to collect. No other cosmological model has been able to give answers to these questions which didn't require significant fudging. This answer does not talk about the assumption without edges. The predictions will come from Humphreys model as well, as the physics are quite similar. The big difference, is that the universe finite, and it has a center. Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ * Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
And observed quantized redshifts seem to support this. But there are no "quantized" redshifts - that was an artefact of small sample size. I'll get you the reference when I get home this evening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6348 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
In Humphrey's cosmology how far away is the edge? The edge of the universe is unknown, but he does say that the diameter of all the matter of the universe at the beginning, originally water, was about 2 light years across. The event horizon then was at about 0.5 billion light years away from this outer edge of water. This cosmology also states that outside the edge of the universe is more space for some distance, then there is the 'wall' of water, probably ice now. This 'wall' encases this universe. Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ * Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Linky: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0208/0208117.pdf
The abstract:
We have used the publicly available data from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that there is a periodicity in the redshift distribution of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) found projected close to foreground galaxies. These data provide by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a study, yielding 1647 QSO-galaxy pairs. There is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
but he does say that the diameter of all the matter of the universe at the beginning, originally water, was about 2 light years across. Does he have a mechanism that converts all that oxygen in his water to hydrogen and helium? Does he have any reason beyond a couple of Bible verses for the astonishing ad hoccery of having water there at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Emphasis mine. His take??, means what to you? You really think RATE is out to lunch that bad? My take is that your sources are not so reliable as you think they are. I encourage more criticism, but not ignorance. Yes, his take -- his professional opinion as one who knows what the problems with the dating methodology include and that they produce natural variations in readings that are on the order of the "RATE" groups results: their "results" are normal statistical variations in background noise. With a candid scientific expression of tentativity that applies to all findings. The fact remains that no matter how much you think this somehow invalidates what he said, you could not refute one sentence he said of WHY the "RATE" group results were nonsense. This amounts to an ad hominem attack on the messenger and not the message, coupled with another logical fallacy, the argument from incredulity.
Evidence that the earth is close to the center: I keep coming back to one issue that creationists just do not deal with. IT does not matter how much evidence you can compile that supports your position if you refuse to acknowledge and deal with the mountain of evidence that refutes, contradicts and invalidates it. We cannot measure the boundaries of the universe, therefore it is impossible to measure being at the center. Most of the "quotes" in your post are NOT from my reply but those of other gasby: either reply to them directly or make a general reply and note each person and message that the quote comes from. gasby, Message 2But let's assume that somehow all of this is correct. Wouldn't it have been more accurate for the bible to say something like "a very very very old universe with a very young earth"? gasby, Message 2If we are below the event horizon, how come we aren't ripped apart by gravitational forces? gasby, Message 2Here's the thing. How does Humphrey's version explain the cosmic background radiation predicted and discovered by the BB theory? gasby, Message 2Um, no. It's not just the direction that appear to be homogeneous, it's also the distance. According to Humphrey's version, shouldn't we find a hell of a lot more "stuff" nearer to us and a hell of a lot less "stuff" farther away? I trust you don't expect me to answer for gasby, so you really should reply to his message with these comments.
Humphreys says that...and dismisses another source, the Kuiper Belt This is from http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm and not one of my comments either. I would have done this as http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
quote: So that the reference was clear and the proper source could be reviewed to see what you omitted with the ellipsis and also what the rest of the article said that refuted your point.
Humphreys says that...and dismisses another source, the Kuiper Belt
Hmmm...
No known object in the Kuiper belt is a remotely possible candidate to become a comet.
Kuiper belt - WikipediaThere are definitely Kuiper objects around, they just aren't comets!! So Humphrey's argument still hold regarding comets. Seems you missed the rest of the story.http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm quote: Bold in the original, so you should find it easily eh?
There are definitely Kuiper objects around, they just aren't comets!! So Humphrey's argument still hold regarding comets. Really?
quote: The Oort cloud does exist, and objects have been seen in the Kuiper belt. Simulations show migration from the Kuiper belt to the Oort cloud and that the Oort cloud is a source of comets. The comets that are left are the ones still out in the Oort cloud, comets that also necessarily have a much longer orbital periods than any that may have come directly from the Kuiper belt. Thus the facts would show that the Kuiper belt IS "exhausted of cometary material" -- as it has either been disbursed by Kuiper belt comets that have already disintegrated OR that has migrated out to the Oort Cloud, thus indicating an old age -- according to Humphrey's prediction.
This is just a weak website you use. And you reach this conclusion by using wikipedia instead of the several astronomical papers and journal articles cited in the website? Please. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024