Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2018 7:47 PM
230 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, JonF, kjsimons, Meddle (5 members, 225 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,381 Year: 17,204/29,783 Month: 1,192/1,956 Week: 189/506 Day: 125/64 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   Astronomers See Evidence of Something Unexpected in the Universe
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 86 (829961)
03-18-2018 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by nwr
03-18-2018 12:23 AM


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

I think it would have been more accurate if you had chosen a phrasing that expressed a more personal sentiment. The less mysterious your comments become, the more obvious it is that we are looking at your own personal position rather than some weakness in the science. If you had made similar comments about biology rather than physics, I suspect more folks would think you sound like a creationist. I've reached that point already.

Red shifted light and CMB are not separate lines of evidence? Sounds to me like a personal choice of what to understand rather than a serious questioning of the science.


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7594
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 77 of 86 (829973)
03-19-2018 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by nwr
03-17-2018 4:34 PM


Re: Independent Lines of Evidence
nwr writes:

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.

There is also the fact that it is coming from everywhere in the universe and that it has the predicted power spectrum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nwr, posted 03-17-2018 4:34 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7594
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 78 of 86 (829974)
03-19-2018 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by nwr
03-17-2018 4:56 PM


nwr writes:

So better to call it an hypothesis, rather than a theory.

Then I would be curious as to what you think a scientific theory is. In my view and the view of the vast majority of scientists, a scientific theory is a set of tested and supported hypotheses. The redshift of galaxies, the CMB, and the ratio of light elements tested those hypotheses and they were supported. Therefore, scientists call it the Big Bang theory.


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7594
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 79 of 86 (829975)
03-19-2018 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by nwr
03-18-2018 12:23 AM


nwr writes:

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

Then it just comes down to how stubbornly you will hold onto a position.


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 84 by nwr, posted 03-20-2018 6:26 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7594
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 80 of 86 (829976)
03-19-2018 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by nwr
03-18-2018 12:20 AM


nwr writes:

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.

A standard of measurement is not a theory.

Also, the BB theory predicts that redshift will correlate with distance. For most of us, when predictions made by a hypothesis match observations we call that a supported hypothesis. A theory is a group of supported hypotheses and is also a framework or model for making further hypotheses. That's the standard in science.

quote:
The term nucleosynthesis refers to the formation of heavier elements, atomic nuclei with many protons and neutrons, from the fusion of lighter elements. The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). During the first three minutes of the universe, most of the deuterium combined to make helium. Trace amounts of lithium were also produced at this time. This process of light element formation in the early universe is called “Big Bang nucleosynthesis” (BBN).

The predicted abundance of deuterium, helium and lithium depends on the density of ordinary matter in the early universe, as shown in the figure at left. These results indicate that the yield of helium is relatively insensitive to the abundance of ordinary matter, above a certain threshold. We generically expect about 24% of the ordinary matter in the universe to be helium produced in the Big Bang. This is in very good agreement with observations and is another major triumph for the Big Bang theory.
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html



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

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 81 of 86 (830074)
03-20-2018 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
03-18-2018 4:13 PM


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.

I am not trying to convince other people to agree with me. I am only explaining why I remain unconvinced.

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

No. Because "science" does not name any entity that is capable of being convinced.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 03-18-2018 4:13 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 03-20-2018 6:20 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 82 of 86 (830075)
03-20-2018 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Modulous
03-18-2018 3:12 PM


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'.

Personally, I don't consider that to be satisfactory.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2018 3:12 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 03-21-2018 5:08 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17887
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 83 of 86 (830078)
03-20-2018 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by nwr
03-20-2018 6:13 PM


nwr writes:

I am not trying to convince other people to agree with me.

That's fine.

I am only explaining why I remain unconvinced.

Begin any time.

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

No. Because "science" does not name any entity that is capable of being convinced.

Someone recently said, "I don't need to play word games." They seem good words to live by.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 03-20-2018 6:13 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 84 of 86 (830079)
03-20-2018 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Taq
03-19-2018 11:39 AM


Then it just comes down to how stubbornly you will hold onto a position.

Clearly wrong. I am not holding onto a position. I am patiently waiting to see what other evidence shows up.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 03-19-2018 11:39 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 03-21-2018 11:59 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7594
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 85 of 86 (830091)
03-21-2018 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by nwr
03-20-2018 6:26 PM


nwr writes:

Clearly wrong. I am not holding onto a position. I am patiently waiting to see what other evidence shows up.

Until you explain why at least 3 independent lines of evidence are not enough it looks a lot like stubbornness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by nwr, posted 03-20-2018 6:26 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 58 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 86 of 86 (830124)
03-21-2018 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by nwr
03-20-2018 6:15 PM


Personally, I don't consider that to be satisfactory.

It's a word. If you want to coin a new word which refers to whatever you are thinking of as something that 'establish{es} standards for research' you are welcome to (it sounds like a 'protocol' to me, but I expect there are more notions you are thinking of that you haven't described here). But the word 'theory' has been used in this way for longer than either of us have been alive - I'm at a loss as to how a word can be satisfactory or otherwise, but it doesn't seem an important point either way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by nwr, posted 03-20-2018 6:15 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018