Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2017 10:39 AM
398 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,176 Year: 9,782/21,208 Month: 2,869/2,674 Week: 293/961 Day: 23/134 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
vimesey
Member
Posts: 811
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 286 of 305 (666517)
06-28-2012 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 9:56 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
That is an unsupported claim.

That is not correct. There have been hundreds of experiments to measure and characterize the signatures of CMBR, all of which support the theory that it is a remnant of the big bang.

It would be more accurate for you to say that whilst the claim is supported, you happen to disagree with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 9:56 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:00 AM vimesey has responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1348 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 287 of 305 (666518)
06-28-2012 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by New Cat's Eye
06-28-2012 9:50 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
No, all points only to the observation that light is redshifted in a certain relation to the assumed cosmological distances. That is all. That distances are actually growing of themselves is an unsupported tall claim. Have you been there with a ruler to measure that? And how would you tell a chunk of space growing fast from another one with stunted growth?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2012 9:50 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2012 10:36 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 293 by Taq, posted 06-28-2012 11:07 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15753
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 288 of 305 (666519)
06-28-2012 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Son Goku
06-28-2012 7:57 AM


"It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Son Goku, posted 06-28-2012 7:57 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11237
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 289 of 305 (666520)
06-28-2012 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
No, all points only to the observation that light is redshifted in a certain relation to the assumed cosmological distances.

I think you accidentally a word.

That distances are actually growing of themselves is an unsupported tall claim.

Well, that's what the most current and best model shows. Pardon me for not just taking your word that our smartest scientists are dumbasses.

Have you been there with a ruler to measure that? And how would you tell a chunk of space growing fast from another one with stunted growth?

The math works, and the observations are consistent with the model. That's all we can really expect at this point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 10:07 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 290 of 305 (666522)
06-28-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 9:56 AM


Predictions (Again....)
Predictably you are missing the point regarding the power of prediction in assessing the worth of a theory. BB theory doesn't just provide a post-hoc explanation of the CMBR in the way that you are seeking to do. The logical consequence of BB theory is that the CMBR both must exist and that it must have certain very specific characteristics.

The reason that the Cosmic Microwave Background is deemed to be a verification of the Big Bang theory is because the theory exactly predicts (demands even) the observations that have subsequently been made. Have a look at this NASA page: NASA Link

Link writes:

According to the Big Bang theory, the frequency spectrum of the CMB should have this blackbody form. This was indeed measured with tremendous accuracy by the FIRAS experiment on NASA's COBE satellite.
This figure shows the prediction of the Big Bang theory for the energy spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation compared to the observed energy spectrum. The FIRAS experiment measured the spectrum at 34 equally spaced points along the blackbody curve. The error bars on the data points are so small that they can not be seen under the predicted curve in the figure! There is no alternative theory yet proposed that predicts this energy spectrum.


The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory and only a fool would deny this. This is because it is relatively easy to construct theories that explain and interpret known observations. But it is incredibly difficult to construct theories that predict, and lead to the discovery of, new evidence and which can thus be demonstrated as being in accordance with reality.

So my question to those who want to insist that we adopt some alternative hypothesis is simple. What have you ever discovered? Not what have they concluded. But what have they actually discovered as a direct result of their theories and conclusions?

And if the answer to that question is “nothing” I question whether what they are doing can accurately be called science at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 9:56 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6052
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 291 of 305 (666523)
06-28-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 5:29 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
Well, Taq, if the redshift is the evidence that the Universe has been expanding from 0D point of singularity to reach the huge proportions currently measured, then could you be so kind as to inform the cat where could it have possibly been expanding into, according to your lights?

Not knowing what the universe is expanding into in no way puts the evidence of expansion in doubt. The universe IS expanding. That is what evidence points to. The cosmic microwave background evidences the fact that the univese was once opaque to light, but then became transparent about 14 billion years ago in our frame of reference (the frame of reference in which the CMB was measured). The abundance of light elements (H, He, and Li) also supports a starting point for our universe in past. A universe with an infinite past would have long ago ran out of hydrogen to fuse and would be in entropy death.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 5:29 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:22 AM Taq has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1348 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 292 of 305 (666524)
06-28-2012 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by vimesey
06-28-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
No, since the nature of the claim is most fantastic and the explanation offered is the least plausible one, any proper science must have had all other possible explanations of the phenomenon thoroughly exhausted before rushing into accepting such a proposition as gospel truth. The very opposite attitude is being observed. Cosmogonists clamour incessantly that it is indeed an echo of the baby universe and are markedly not interested in any other possibilities. That's circular striving to prove what is taken for granted already, so that's faith, not science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by vimesey, posted 06-28-2012 10:07 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by vimesey, posted 06-28-2012 11:09 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 295 by Taq, posted 06-28-2012 11:12 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6052
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 293 of 305 (666525)
06-28-2012 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
No, all points only to the observation that light is redshifted in a certain relation to the assumed cosmological distances. That is all. That distances are actually growing of themselves is an unsupported tall claim. Have you been there with a ruler to measure that? And how would you tell a chunk of space growing fast from another one with stunted growth?

That's just it, we have been measuring it with rulers. Our rulers are standard candles such as type Ia supernovae. These give us accurate distances to other galaxies. We find a correlation between redshift and distance as measured by these standard candles. We also see time dilation effects in distant supernovae. This can only occur if they are indeed moving away from us at high speed.

Perhaps you should justify your denial. Afterall, shouldn't we expect to see a redshift if the universe is expanding? Shouldn't we expect to see time dilation effects in distant supernovae if the universe is expanding? Shouldn't we expect to see a cosmic microwave backgroud radiation with specific characteristics if the universe had a beginning from a dense area of energy? You discount this evidence only because it is inconvenient for your beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 10:07 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 811
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 294 of 305 (666526)
06-28-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 11:00 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
and the explanation offered is the least plausible one

That is not correct. Let me repeat: "There have been hundreds of experiments to measure and characterize the signatures of CMBR, all of which support the theory that it is a remnant of the big bang."

In contrast, neither I nor anyone else here is aware of any experiments which support any competing theory.

This makes it the most plausible explanation, not the least plausible one.

Have a look at the link which Straggler provided. In fact, look at his last post and his previous one. They set out precisely what it is that makes a scientific theory plausible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6052
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 295 of 305 (666527)
06-28-2012 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 11:00 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
No, since the nature of the claim is most fantastic and the explanation offered is the least plausible one, any proper science must have had all other possible explanations of the phenomenon thoroughly exhausted before rushing into accepting such a proposition as gospel truth.

The evidence makes it very plausible. Also, a static universe was the original cosmological model. The BB theory had a really tough time garnering support early in its life. However, as the evidence piled up it continued to support the BB theory and contradict a static universe.

If you want to claim that the universe is static then you have to explain the evidence in terms of a static universe. First, there is Olber's Paradox. If the universe is infinite with infinite mass and energy then the night sky should be completely lit up by distant stars. It isn't. The night sky is quite dark. Why is that? You also need to explain why the universe has not reached entropy death. You need to explain why we observe a cosmic microwave background that exactly fits the predictions made by the BB theory. You need to explain why distant supernovae display time dilation effects. You need to explain the redshift.

Instead, all I see is denial. You simply don't want the BB theory to be true, evidence be damned. That is simply not a rational way to approach reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:41 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1348 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 296 of 305 (666529)
06-28-2012 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Taq
06-28-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
No, that's a very poor argument since that is taking for granted that the process called the universe is a synchronous closed system that can run out of something all at once. That's logically impossible so is not the case. The Universe is nether closed nor open. Only what can be opened can be closed. You confuse the Universe with a window. That's a fallacy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Taq, posted 06-28-2012 10:52 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Taq, posted 06-28-2012 11:29 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 300 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2012 11:50 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6052
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 297 of 305 (666532)
06-28-2012 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 11:22 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
No, that's a very poor argument since that is taking for granted that the process called the universe is a synchronous closed system that can run out of something all at once.

You have never heard of entropy? You are unaware that hydrogen fuses into heavier elements in stars? Nothing is being taken for granted. I am going with OBSERVATIONS. If the universe has an infinite past then there would be no energy available for work. None. That is what thermodynamics shows us.

The Universe is nether closed nor open.

Evidence please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:22 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1060
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 298 of 305 (666534)
06-28-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 9:56 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
The thread is about to go into summary mode, but I didn't want to let this go.

It doesn't matter what I say the CMB is, the point is that radio telescopes can see it and when measured it has a quadrupole moment of a certain size.

Any theory should be able to predict the size of its quadrupole moment, no matter what it says the CMB is.

So forget about what physicists think and focusing on your own ideas, what is the predicted size of the quadrupole moment?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 9:56 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1348 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 299 of 305 (666535)
06-28-2012 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Taq
06-28-2012 11:12 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
No, there is no such thing possible as infinite mass or anything. Infinity is not a quantity. It only means that you can neither finish nor start counting. In the case you do start counting you cannot finish the process. A better concept to reflect that would be finite but uncountable. So no problem with Olber's paradox which is a red herring anyway used to support the big bunk creationism
This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Taq, posted 06-28-2012 11:12 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11237
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 300 of 305 (666536)
06-28-2012 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 11:22 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
The Universe is nether closed nor open. Only what can be opened can be closed. You confuse the Universe with a window. That's a fallacy.

Dude. Please. This is embarassing. An open system is not open in the sense that windows are opened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:22 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017