Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2018 10:49 PM
214 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (2 members, 212 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,915 Year: 18,738/29,783 Month: 683/2,043 Week: 235/386 Day: 94/44 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Astronomers See Evidence of Something Unexpected in the Universe
Taq
Member
Posts: 7618
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 61 of 86 (829859)
03-15-2018 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by nwr
03-15-2018 11:32 AM


nwr writes:

That's what I am questioning.

So what mechanisms are you pointing to that could create this wavelength independent redshift that appears to increase with distance from the Milky Way? Why do you see expansion as a questionable conclusion?

A second check on the conclusion of space expansion is the CMB. If you run the expansion backwards you would predict that all matter would have been crammed into a very small space, and would have been really, really hot. Initially, this matter would be a plasma and would be opaque to EM radiation. Some time later, as the matter expanded and cooled, would you get atomic hydrogen which does allow EM radiation to move freely in the universe. That prediction was confirmed in the form of the CMB which is EM radiation that is coming from everywhere in the universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nwr, posted 03-15-2018 11:32 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nwr, posted 03-15-2018 4:09 PM Taq has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5584
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 62 of 86 (829863)
03-15-2018 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Taq
03-15-2018 2:57 PM


So what mechanisms are you pointing to that could create this wavelength independent redshift that appears to increase with distance from the Milky Way?

I am not pointing to mechanisms.

I am suggesting that conclusions about expansion are premature. We do not know nearly enough to jump to such conclusions.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 03-15-2018 2:57 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 03-15-2018 4:14 PM nwr has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7618
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 63 of 86 (829864)
03-15-2018 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nwr
03-15-2018 4:09 PM


nwr writes:

I am suggesting that conclusions about expansion are premature. We do not know nearly enough to jump to such conclusions.

Would you agree that all of the observations we have thus far are consistent with expansion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nwr, posted 03-15-2018 4:09 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by nwr, posted 03-17-2018 4:00 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7618
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 64 of 86 (829891)
03-16-2018 11:00 AM


Independent Lines of Evidence
nwr finds the evidence for expansion to be inadequate, so I thought I would at least discuss why I think it is adequate to draw a scientific conclusion (i.e. a tentative conclusion).

One of the hallmarks of a well supported theory in science is the consilience of multiple lines of evidence. It is always a bad idea in science to draw strong conclusions from a single experiment, or even a single type of experiment. Most recently, the Higgs boson was discovered at CERN, and this discovery was made by two separate and isolated labs using two different instruments. The fact that their conclusions agreed with one another only further strengthened their conclusions.

So what are the independent lines of evidence for the Big Bang and the continued expansion of space? There are at least 3:

1. The correlation between redshift and distance.

2. The cosmic microwave background.

3. The ratio of light elements.

The third piece of evidence has to do with the expected ratios of hydrogen, helium, and lithium in the universe. If the universe started out as a really hot and dense ball of matter and energy then we would expect to see about a 3 to 1 ratio of hydrogen to helium with all other elements making up about 2% of the total which is exactly what we see, as discussed here.

So we have three completely independent lines of evidence, all of which match the predictions made by the Big Bang theory which includes continued expansion of the universe. This is why I agree that the Big Bang model deserves to be accepted as tentatively true. I think it has passed the tests needed to gain consensus within astrophysics.

I would be interested in hearing why people think that these independent lines of evidence are inadequate.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nwr, posted 03-17-2018 4:34 PM Taq has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5584
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 65 of 86 (829917)
03-17-2018 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Taq
03-15-2018 4:14 PM


Would you agree that all of the observations we have thus far are consistent with expansion?

Yes, as far as I know.

But they seem not to conclusively demonstrate expansion.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 03-15-2018 4:14 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 03-17-2018 4:35 PM nwr has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5584
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 66 of 86 (829920)
03-17-2018 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Taq
03-16-2018 11:00 AM


Re: Independent Lines of Evidence
If you take red-shifted light, and red-shift it even more, you get microwave radiation. So I don't see that as independent evidence.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 03-16-2018 11:00 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Taq, posted 03-19-2018 11:35 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17974
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 67 of 86 (829921)
03-17-2018 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by nwr
03-17-2018 4:00 PM


nwr writes:

But they seem not to conclusively demonstrate expansion.

Do you mean "conclusively" as the opposite of "tentatively"? If so then I think everyone would agree merely on the principle that science demonstrates nothing conclusively, only tentatively.

But if by "conclusively" you do not mean the opposite of "tentatively" then what would be an example of something science has "conclusively" demonstrated?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by nwr, posted 03-17-2018 4:00 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by nwr, posted 03-17-2018 4:56 PM Percy has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5584
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 68 of 86 (829922)
03-17-2018 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
03-17-2018 4:35 PM


I don't need to play word games.

I don't see that big bang theory does anything for us. So better to call it an hypothesis, rather than a theory.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 03-17-2018 4:35 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 03-17-2018 6:04 PM nwr has responded
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 03-17-2018 6:17 PM nwr has responded
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 03-19-2018 11:38 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 69 of 86 (829923)
03-17-2018 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by nwr
03-17-2018 4:56 PM


I don't see that big bang theory does anything for us. So better to call it an hypothesis, rather than a theory.

You think utility determines whether something is a theory or a hypothesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nwr, posted 03-17-2018 4:56 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by nwr, posted 03-18-2018 12:20 AM Modulous has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17974
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 70 of 86 (829927)
03-17-2018 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by nwr
03-17-2018 4:56 PM


nwr writes:

I don't need to play word games.

I would like to understand your meaning. What does "conclusively demonstrate" mean to you in science?

I don't see that big bang theory does anything for us. So better to call it an hypothesis, rather than a theory.

I have the same question as Modulous.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nwr, posted 03-17-2018 4:56 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by nwr, posted 03-18-2018 12:23 AM Percy has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5584
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 71 of 86 (829934)
03-18-2018 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Modulous
03-17-2018 6:04 PM


You think utility determines whether something is a theory or a hypothesis?

We use "theory" too casually.

A theory should establish standards for research in the area. The Hubble red shift did that, by providing a new standard for measuring distance to remote galaxies. I'm not seeing anything comparable with BB.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 03-17-2018 6:04 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2018 3:12 PM nwr has responded
 Message 80 by Taq, posted 03-19-2018 11:44 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5584
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 72 of 86 (829935)
03-18-2018 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
03-17-2018 6:17 PM


What does "conclusively demonstrate" mean to you in science?

It would have been better if I had used "convincingly".

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 03-17-2018 6:17 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 03-18-2018 4:13 PM nwr has responded
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2018 4:28 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2018 4:33 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 03-19-2018 11:39 AM nwr has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 73 of 86 (829952)
03-18-2018 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nwr
03-18-2018 12:20 AM


A theory should establish standards for research in the area.

Could you explain what you mean? I mean I think the classic "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." is fine, and not at all 'casual'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nwr, posted 03-18-2018 12:20 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by nwr, posted 03-20-2018 6:15 PM Modulous has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17974
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 74 of 86 (829957)
03-18-2018 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by nwr
03-18-2018 12:23 AM


nwr writes:

What does "conclusively demonstrate" mean to you in science?

It would have been better if I had used "convincingly".

Okay, so using the base word "convince"...

If one considers the *convincing* evidence that Taq enumerated in Message 64:

  1. The correlation between redshift and distance.
  2. The cosmic microwave background.
  3. The ratio of light elements.

And if one considers that the response in Message 66 was wholly *unconvincing* in terms of rebuttal or any indication the evidence described was understood.

And if one considers that this information has *convinced* a consensus of scientists within the relevant scientific community about what this information means as theory.

And if one considers the details of how a theoretical consensus is built as Modulous describes in Message 73, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

And if one considers that the explanation, the theory, has made successful predictions.

Mustn't one concede that expansion has been *convincingly* demonstrated to science, though of course still tentative and open to change?

It is understood that some might demur from the consensus, but to this point no *convincing* arguments have been advanced against it. Wikipedia has a section on alternatives: Redshift periodicity and intrinsic redshifts. Halton Arp receives a good deal of mention.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by nwr, posted 03-18-2018 12:23 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 03-20-2018 6:13 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 86 (829960)
03-18-2018 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by nwr
03-18-2018 12:23 AM


Convincing?
It would have been better if I had used "convincingly"

Duplicate

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)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by nwr, posted 03-18-2018 12:23 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018