|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation cosmology and the Big Bang | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I don't know all of these answers, but I could discuss the following. I see that one of the resident physicists has given some more answers.
Quantized Red shifts Ain't no such thing. I could have sworn that you had gotten some responses to this before.
Metals and heavy elements are far too abundant in early universe Nonsense.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not directly observable Not a problem. Are black holes directly observable, the suns core, the overwhelming majority of discovered exo-planets?
BB Inflation near or exceeding speed of light (Special Relativity objections) Inflation is not actual movement of objects in space. There is no special relativity objection.
he Higgs Boson is missing, mass cannot be imparted to matter by the Standard model in particle physics. Not a big bang issue at all. There may be some problem with particle physics, but not every particle physics problem is a big bang problem. We do know that particles do have mass. It is not as though mass will suddenly disappear if the Higgs Boson is not found. But even beyond that, it is premature to say that the Higgs Boson is missing.
Expansion of the universe seems to have a general orientation of galaxies and implies a universe center. (Cosmological Principle is wrong). Nonsense. No evidence for this at all.
Computational models applying Jeans length have failed to produce the more massive stars, which are more numerous than our sun. Perhaps you should rephrase this a bit. We have only one sun. I assume you mean stars similar in size to our sun. I am curious as to how this is a big bang question at all. Sounds like a solar modeling/computer programming problem. And you are right. There is no fault in ignorance. I never claimed there was any fault. There are, however, faults associated with ignorance. Willfulness is one. Hubris is yet another. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Why I started this post in the first place was to increase my own understanding of cosmology physics. Then the last thing you should be doing is finding creationist objections to the Big Bang model. Creationists are more interested in reducing our knowledge, not increasing it. For example:
Expansion of the universe seems to have a general orientation of galaxies and implies a universe center. This isn't true. Never has been. How does one seek knowledge by being wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Unless you are just taking the participants word for it? Does an argument automatically win in this forum Ad Novitam? Zaius, I don't believe that pursue this issue any further is doing service to your reputation. The article you cited was indeed old. But even given that, the cited article contained a potential explanation that has since turned out to be exactly correct. The explanation given in the article has since been verified by experiment. You didn't have to take my word for the fact that your information was at least a decade old, but trying to disprove that by citing an even older article was quite obviously not going to work. Even beyond that, there are plenty of accessible sources that contained the truth. We all err. I have found that simply acknowledging an error is the best practice. A distant second best, but more commonly used, is simply not to repeating the error leaving us to guess whether you accept that you were wrong. Bad practice is making posts that appear to defend the error; at least that would be the case if you gave a hoot about how we perceive future posts under your handle. I certainly took this into account when I looked at your list of Big Bang problems in a subsequent post. For what it's worth, I had no trouble following the link that JonF provided to the relevant LA times article. The wikipedia article I referenced includes pointers to primary references backing up the points made in the article. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Let me get this straight. Someone points out that your understanding is ten years out of date and you're trying to rebut that with a 21 year old article?
Unless you are just taking the participants word for it? IMHO, the author of the 2001 article did not know at the time what was going to happen in 2001. Do you think he/she did know, in 1991, what was going to haqppen in 2001?
Does an argument automatically win in this forum Ad Novitam? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. In this forum, presenting sourced and verifiable evidence that the Solar neutrino problem was solved in 2001 proves that your claim of an existing Solar neutrino problem is falsified and that your citation of an irrelevant article written in 1991 as support is incredibly foolish and reflects extremely poorly on your knowledge and capabilities.
Interesting article you cited thanks. Do you now accept that there has been no Solar neutrino problem since 2001?
Tried to open your citation and got a security update for .NET framework, could you try again please Sorry, not my problem. That's your problem. I quoted enough of the article to refute your claim that there is a solar neutrino problem now. But you can try this link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
For what it's worth, I had no trouble following the link that JonF provided to the relevant LA times article Excessively pedantic perhaps, but my link was to the Nobel Prize website, to an article written by physicist John Bahcall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Quantized Red shifts Ain't no such thing. I could have sworn that you had gotten some responses to this before. I don't remember. Tom Bridgman has some very informative if somewhat technical blog posts on the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Actually, I'm the one with egg on my face. Earlier, you give a link to the LA times article, but the link in question does go to a Microsoft site.
NoNukes. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
JonF my friend
I don't remember. Tom Bridgman has some very informative if somewhat technical blog posts on the subject. BTW...I have no problem whatsoever with the evidence of solar neutrinos being accounted for and yes thanks for the correction. Now let us talk about quantized redshifts. Here is quote from the abstract by Hartnett and Hirano
quote: Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N( z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys - NASA/ADS I skimmed the article you cited and found this: In the plot above, there is not even the suggestion of alignment of galaxies along these curved lines. Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Search results for quantized redshift I disagree, I actually did see some periodical distributions although the human eye may not be a satisfactory tool in statistical analysis as those used by Hartnett and Hirano. I find the objection undemanding. Here is another paper supporting Quantized redshifts. Rutgers University Department of Physics and Astronomy I have also found earlier articles claming errors in the statistical analysis but I believe Hartnett addressed all of these issues. I also must say that to criticize a paper is not necessarily to disprove that paper so I take them with a grain of salt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You should have done more than skimmed Dr. Bridgman's article, and you should have read the articles to which he linked.
Brief summary: He did get some of Hartnett's claims wrong, and apologized for it, but he demonstrated by Fourier analysis in several ways that there is no quantized redshift.
I actually did see some periodical distributions although the human eye may not be a satisfactory tool in statistical analysis The human eye is definitely not a useful tool in statistical analyses. Pareidolia and Apophenia are well known phenomena.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
JonF my friend
but he demonstrated by Fourier analysis in several ways that there is no quantized redshift. In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way (this problem tends to smear the data). In addition, preferred redshifts are sensitive to accuracy in the distant galactic redshift measurements so large numbers of very distant galaxies (that tend to be less accurate) cause accumulated measurement errors also smearing the data.
quote: Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model - NASA/ADS
quote: Periodicities in Galaxy Redshifts - NASA/ADS I do not wish to blitz you with citations but there is actually overwhelming secular research that finds Q-Redshifting to be true. Please forgive the excess of citations but I really wish to put this one to rest. The Virgo cluster as a test for quantization of extragalactic redshifts. - NASA/ADS Evidence for redshift periodicity in nearby field galaxies. - NASA/ADS Additional members of the local group of galaxies and quantized redshifts within the two nearest groups. - NASA/ADS http://www.springerlink.com/content/r826358852wg46u5/ Redshift periodicity in the Local Supercluster. - NASA/ADS http://www.springerlink.com/content/t17401650822m547/ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0211/0211091v1.pdf From Redshift Quantization? | Physics Forums This list is by no means comprehensive. Please cite some peer reviews that might contradict my position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe T Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 41 From: Virginia Joined: |
It is very interesting that you cite this discussion: Redshift Quantization? | Physics Forums
The guy there making the same arguements you are, and using the references you use, was pretty thoroughly spanked. Did you read through the discussion or just Google looking for support? Joe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Welcome Son Goku I apologize for my late response
The issue over the quadrupole moment is how large it is (the measurements have large errors and there are data analysis issues) and what exactly it implies about the long term development of the universe and early development of matter. However it has nothing to do with the occurrence of the Big Bang, since the Cosmic Microwave Background, in which the quadrupole anomaly exists is a prediction of the Big Bang. I wish I had time to give your statement the attention it needs. In astrophysics today CMBR smoothness relating to the BB is defiantly a real problem. Consider the following about the Ad-Hock inflation explanation about smoothness in the CMBR
quote: OpenStax CNX Lack of shadows in the CMBR are also proving to be a real problem
quote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/09/060905104549.htm let us reason on these findings further
Again nothing to do with the Big Bang itself, rather why do certain parameters have values that result in a flat universe. It's still a flat Big Bang universe though, as the parameters are the parameters of the Big Bang model. as the parameters are the parameters Albeit the excessive additions of dark energy/dark matter. By the way, one of the issues about the flatness of the universe is that flatness over time would tend to disappear (not observed).
It's silly to say it is missing when the experiments to detect it have just begun. If if it is missing isn't this a particle physics issue and not cosmological? You can't list everything physicists don't know as somehow being evidence against the Big Bang. Actually, the Higgs mechanism plays a major if not primary roll in the current understanding of formation of mass in BB theory. The Higgs is missing (you heard it here first).
quote: I don't know what you have been reading, but those are two of the best matches between experiment and theory that the Big Bang possesses. Citation please
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Hey, Joe thanks for responding
It is very interesting that you cite this discussion: Redshift Quantization? | Physics Forums
You need to help me out here; I reviewed each citation and found they did indeed support my position. When you say, spanked do you have those objections because I do not wish to read the entire thread? You also need to consider my qualifier for most of the objections namely:
The guy there making the same arguements you are, and using the references you use, was pretty thoroughly spanked. Did you read through the discussion or just Google looking for support? In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way (this problem tends to smear the data). In addition, preferred redshifts are sensitive to accuracy in the distant galactic redshift measurements so large numbers of very distant galaxies (that tend to be less accurate) cause accumulated measurement errors also smearing the data.
Me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Actually, the Higgs mechanism plays a major if not primary roll in the current understanding of formation of mass in BB theory.
That's not remotely true. The Higgs mechanism has no role to play in the formation of mass in the Big Bang theory. It explains how the Electroweak Force became the Electromagnetic and Weak Nuclear Forces. It certainly does not play a primary role in the Big Bang theory as the Higgs was first proposed decades after the Big Bang model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way Indeed? Please cite evidence that this is the case.
I do not wish to blitz you with citations but there is actually overwhelming secular research that finds Q-Redshifting to be true. Boy oh boy, you just love out-of-date information!! Google it up and post it without thinking, that's you. Yes, there used to be some controversy about whether or not redshifts were quantized. That controversy is settled; redshifts are not quantized. A few researchers (mostly creationists) still hold on to the idea but the evidence against it is overwhelming. Anything published before 2000 (the first data release from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey) is definitely out of date. (Wikipedia notes in its list of major papers claiming redshift quantisation that "All of these studies were performed before the tremendous advances in redshift cataloging that would be made at the end of the 1990s. Since that time, the number of galaxies for which astronomers have measured redshifts has increased by several orders of magnitude." Please remove all links to papers published before 2000. It would be best to question papers published before 2007 (the fifth data release of the SDSS) What do you have left? From No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data (2002):
quote: From Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data (2005):
quote: In On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity (2006) Bajan et. al. found weak indications of quantization but concluded:
quote: From The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog IV. Fifth Data Release (2007), section 5 (pg 12):
quote: You really need to read Delusions of Geocentric Quantization... Edited by JonF, : Fix erroneous date
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024