Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the big bang ( Questions from a Teen )
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 79 (100016)
04-14-2004 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by rineholdr
04-13-2004 3:16 PM


avoiding probabilities
We have seen that many evolutionists avoid aprobability analysis as if it were the plague.
this is now addressed at
EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problem
balls in your court?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by rineholdr, posted 04-13-2004 3:16 PM rineholdr has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 62 of 79 (100058)
04-14-2004 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Loudmouth
04-13-2004 7:17 PM


Re: You (and it seems Asimov) are misunderstanding Thermodynamics
I am trying to work up an example where the actual sequence need not be known but relies instead only on different symmetries that are SUBSEQUENTLY applied to various macromolecular series that are known. The "trick" is to get temporality out of spatial assymetries by purely known physical effects-- still working though - so nothing to report but this only speaks"" of the people figuing out the bang not the bucks that exploded before it was thought up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Loudmouth, posted 04-13-2004 7:17 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Loudmouth, posted 04-14-2004 7:48 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 79 (100063)
04-14-2004 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Brad McFall
04-14-2004 7:38 PM


Re: You (and it seems Asimov) are misunderstanding Thermodynamics
quote:
I am trying to work up an example where the actual sequence need not be known but relies instead only on different symmetries that are SUBSEQUENTLY applied to various macromolecular series that are known.
Actually, those that are studying the RNA world, or abiogenesis through catalytic/enzymatic RNA, seem to be stepping in that direction. Instead of relying on specific sequence, they are tending more towards secondary structure such as stem-loops. Libraries of catalytic RNA can also be compared to find the simplist structural motif for a given reaction, be it substrate or replication specific.
Just to go off on a tangent, but what if the sequence meant nothing, only the length. That is, what if there were certain conditions, be they inorganic or amino acid driven reactions, that will replicate DNA of a certain length regardless of the sequence. Within abiogenesis research, the sky is still the limit which is why I criticize proposed probabilities AGAINST abiogenesis. It is like making probabilities for a lottery without knowing how many ping pong balls there are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Brad McFall, posted 04-14-2004 7:38 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Brad McFall, posted 04-14-2004 7:59 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 64 of 79 (100066)
04-14-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Loudmouth
04-14-2004 7:48 PM


Re: You (and it seems Asimov) are misunderstanding Thermodynamics
yes,yes- but I will be deriving the 2-dimensionality from theorems in geometry NOT from empirical data in actual expts or NMRprojections from which tests of the idea will ensue. Only "length" will be subsummed by elliptic geometry while any acutal projection to the 3-D form of any organisms would have to go thru hyperbolic geometry but the different kinds of symmetry can get me a ONE SIDED view no matter the DNA. This may be physically impossible (as to loops for instance) but I have to start to do some calculations first where there will be multiple KINDS of geometry active in the geneology of a common metric I presume would bind all empricial claims if it adds indeed value. I have always worried that the loops took on too much prominence in that they used only a planar idea thru the ribosome while it has acual volume and I wonder whether it is not 'action at a distance' directionally that affect the relation of TRNA's to stops and starts as if read-thru was not going to be a 3-D problem. I may not be able to keep the unknown length undefined in that case but so far I have not tried to actually predict secondary structure but the means to get beyond one dimension exist in the geometric principle of duality. The degree of incidence may be quite large for any random length supposed however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Loudmouth, posted 04-14-2004 7:48 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 65 of 79 (100296)
04-15-2004 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by teen15m6
04-02-2004 5:11 PM


There are two kinds of basic problems with the "big bang" idea. One is that it is based on a totally wrong interpretation of redshift data. Halton Arp (Halton Arp's official website), http://www.dragonscience.com etc. and others have shown multiple instances of high and low redshift objects which are clearly part and parcel of the same things, clearly refuting the entire basis of big-bang.
But the really big problems with the idea are philosophical. Show me a scientist who can expound the big bang idea and keep his face straight, and I'll show you a man who couldn't pass the most basic sort of a philosophy or logic course. In fact I'll show you a man who needs to be horsewhipped, the idea is so flagrantly ludicrous.
Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; how's anything supposed to bang its way out of that?
Aside from that, time appears to stretch out to infinity both before us and behind us and to my knowledge, there is no evidence for believing anything else. Suppose a big bang DID occur 17 billion years ago.: is time supposed to have STARTED 17 billion years ago? If so, how and why? If not, then an infinite amount of time existed prior to the big bang; the mass of the universe would have sat there at its starting point literally forever prior to that event; why would a situation with an infinite past change?
Are we supposed to believe that the universe goes through cycles of big bangs and then big contractions to the original everything-at-a-point condition? The big contraction would be an absolute violation of the second law of thermodynamics. In fact they don't even have enough real mass in a single galaxy to explain why it doesn't fly apart and are reduced to talking about "dark matter" supposedly making up 95% of the universe (you'd be vacuming the stuff up off your carpet every day if that were the case).
Big bang is a philosophical and scientific morass which competent scientists have given up on; like evolution it is only being defended by dead wood and second-raters at the present time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by teen15m6, posted 04-02-2004 5:11 PM teen15m6 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 04-15-2004 10:50 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 67 by Sylas, posted 04-15-2004 11:54 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 74 by coffee_addict, posted 04-16-2004 5:41 AM redwolf has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 66 of 79 (100297)
04-15-2004 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by redwolf
04-15-2004 10:39 PM


Big bang is a philosophical and scientific morass which competent scientists have given up on; like evolution it is only being defended by dead wood and second-raters at the present time.
Fascinating! Do tell!
Do you seriously think that those hundred billion other galaxies really care a whole lot about the "philosophical problems" of the current inhabitants of our little Earth?
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-15-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by redwolf, posted 04-15-2004 10:39 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 67 of 79 (100306)
04-15-2004 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by redwolf
04-15-2004 10:39 PM


redwolf writes:
There are two kinds of basic problems with the "big bang" idea. One is that it is based on a totally wrong interpretation of redshift data. Halton Arp (Halton Arp's official website), DragonScience.com is for sale | HugeDomains etc. and others have shown multiple instances of high and low redshift objects which are clearly part and parcel of the same things, clearly refuting the entire basis of big-bang.
Redshift is not the entire basis of big-bang, and the associations proposed by Arp and others are not at all "clear". The data is of considerable interest and has been taken seriously and examined, but for the most part the claim of physical associations is weak and circumstantial. Some of Arp's work has included some surprising statistical howlers for such a prominent scientist. In my view, the associations seem to be due to occasional coincidences in alignment, which are bound to occur to some extent. The way to test whether this is a coincidence or not is by statistical analysis and more thorough surveys of galaxies and quasars. Arp's methodology in this respect is not good, with a strong bias towards false positives.
An interesting and dispassionate consideration of the data and the controversy is available at Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy, by William Keel at the University of Alabama.
This article does not, however, discuss the considerable body of evidence that confirms the conventional understanding of cosmological redshifts; such things as surveys of supernova light curves, and various independent distance estimates. This would also bear upon the wider claims made by redwolf.
As a matter of peripheral interest for this forum, Professor Keel is also an evangelical Christian. He has written an interesting article on science and religion. However, this is not really relevant to Keel's professional input on big bang cosmology and Arp's notions of red shift.
The associations proposed by Arp are interesting, but they don't fit a useful systematic pattern. His own explanations don't match the data; but that is a distinct matter from the question of whether or not there is a significant phenomenon here that requires a physical explanation at all.
I'm personally pretty certain that the cause is occasional coincidental alignment; but I continue to read with interest anything which explores the matter further. Keel also mentions ideas of Tifft and others on quantized red-shift, which have now been pretty solidly refuted with more detailed surveys enabled by space based observatories.
But the really big problems with the idea are philosophical. Show me a scientist who can expound the big bang idea and keep his face straight, and I'll show you a man who couldn't pass the most basic sort of a philosophy or logic course. In fact I'll show you a man who needs to be horsewhipped, the idea is so flagrantly ludicrous.
Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; how's anything supposed to bang its way out of that?
Oops. You've just given the game away with this comment.
Both big bang space expansion and black holes are consequences of the physics of gravitation and general relativity. They both correspond to solutions of the equations of relativity; and they are not the same. The big bang is nothing remotely like a black hole. This misconception might arise from the usual error about thinking of the big bang as a dense particle in space, rather than as it really is, a space that is filled without limit or bound with matter and energy at very high density. They are different things entirely. To have a black hole, you need some empty space around the condensed matter. That is not the case with the big bang.
However, most usually this confusion between black holes and big bang is just because someone has absolutely no conception at all of the relevant modern relativistic physics. That is okay for someone wanting to learn, but when someone stands up and pontificates about how the whole body of modern physics needs to be horse whipped for being ignorant of philosophy and logic, then what we have is a crank.
Experience suggests there is no point trying to persuade redwolf on this matter; but that corrections are useful and interesting to readers who really want to understand a bit about the background and why his remarks are so silly.
Aside from that, time appears to stretch out to infinity both before us and behind us and to my knowledge, there is no evidence for believing anything else. Suppose a big bang DID occur 17 billion years ago.: is time supposed to have STARTED 17 billion years ago? If so, how and why? If not, then an infinite amount of time existed prior to the big bang; the mass of the universe would have sat there at its starting point literally forever prior to that event; why would a situation with an infinite past change?
Actually, there is evidence against time and space being infinite. The sky is mostly dark. This is called Obler's paradox, and the resolution is quite simply that time is finite. Space may or may not be finite; we don't know as yet.
Yes, time is supposed to have started 13.7 billion years ago. (This age is now nailed down fairly tightly; but stay tuned for more information and data anyway.) There is more we could say on this, but basically, the first stab at an answer to this question is simply "Yes".
"Why" is not really a question for science. "How" is not completely known as yet.
Are we supposed to believe that the universe goes through cycles of big bangs and then big contractions to the original everything-at-a-point condition? The big contraction would be an absolute violation of the second law of thermodynamics. In fact they don't even have enough real mass in a single galaxy to explain why it doesn't fly apart and are reduced to talking about "dark matter" supposedly making up 95% of the universe (you'd be vacuming the stuff up off your carpet every day if that were the case).
Big bang is a philosophical and scientific morass which competent scientists have given up on; like evolution it is only being defended by dead wood and second-raters at the present time.
You are not supposed to believe in cycles. That was once a serious speculative proposal, but never a matter for belief, and it is no longer particularly credible. As for dark matter, there are now several independent lines of evidence for its existence; even sufficient to make maps of the dark matter around some galaxies, by using techniques of gravitational lensing. I posted an image of such a map here some time ago; I forget which thread. The original basis for its detection was measuring orbital speeds of stars around a galaxy; not the need to have galaxies held together.
Big bang cosmology, and biological evolution, and now both scientific models that are supported by considerable bodies of independent empirical evidence, and are foundational in astronomy and biology; a bit like the periodic table is foundational in chemistry. The "second-raters" here would include the entire body of the major scientific organisations like the NAS or the Royal Society, and everyone who ever obtained a Nobel Prize in science in recent decades. That is not an argument for either model, of course; just a demonstration of how far redwolf has his own head buried in the sand.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by redwolf, posted 04-15-2004 10:39 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 12:05 AM Sylas has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 68 of 79 (100310)
04-16-2004 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Sylas
04-15-2004 11:54 PM


>Both big bang space expansion and black holes are consequences of the >physics of gravitation and general relativity.
There is a little club consisting of authors of dead theories from past centuries, including Chuck Darwin, Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, Engles, Freud, Adam Smith and a number of others, and Albert Einstein is a member of that club.
If everybody took what Einstein had to say about gravity seriously, then the USAF and Boeing would not be working on gravity reduction devices, and there would not be a standard government acronym for the project (GRASP, Gravity Reduction and Advanced Space Propulsion).
Moreover, given Einstein's description of gravity, there would be no way to believe that gravity on our own planet's surface might have ever changed in any sort of a large way in a short period of time, but it is an easy demonstration that it has. Do your own web search on dinosaurs and gravity and try to catch up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Sylas, posted 04-15-2004 11:54 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Sylas, posted 04-16-2004 1:59 AM redwolf has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 69 of 79 (100324)
04-16-2004 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by redwolf
04-16-2004 12:05 AM


The light dawns!!
Hey, "redwolf", welcome aboard. My real name is Chris Ho-Stuart; I'm sure you know me. We've discussed some of these topics, and others also, going back many years. You may safely assume that I am thoroughly caught up on dinosaurs and gravity. One thing I'll say for you; you are always entertaining.
Dinosaurs and gravity would be an interesting new thread, as would the Boeing anti-gravity project. Seriously. We are now diverging somewhat from the original topic; and new threads is recommended practice. I'd love to see this presented with a bit more detail, with some background and references; and I know you are capable of it.
Cheers -- Sylas
(Edited to remove names; I should not have blurted out personal names without permission. Sorry. I doubt if you would really object, but I should still not make that presumption on principle. As you see, I am using a pseudonym myself these days.)
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 12:05 AM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-16-2004 2:16 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 71 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 2:20 AM Sylas has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 70 of 79 (100328)
04-16-2004 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Sylas
04-16-2004 1:59 AM


Somebody say 'new topic'?
Sylas - I don't know if you've noticed that I implimented a new new topic methodology. Pretty much as I was pushing in that other topic. For most forums, new topics need to be processed through the "Proposed New Topics" forum. There is also a new "Suggestions to Proposed New Topics" forum, where select personel can, if needed, start a parallel topic of same title, and suggest message 1/topic title changes.
The link to the "PNT" topic index, containing the relevent "Post New Topic" button, is in my "signature", below. The "SPNT" forum index page is here.
Normally I don't like recruiting moderators etc. in the public view, but it should be obvious that I would love to have you as a topic reviewer. Such would not have moderator status, but would have full posting access to the "SPNT" forum. If you are interested, my e-mail address is mnmoose@lakenet.com (also available at my profile).
Cheers,
Adminnemooseus

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Sylas, posted 04-16-2004 1:59 AM Sylas has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 71 of 79 (100330)
04-16-2004 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Sylas
04-16-2004 1:59 AM


>You may safely assume that I am thoroughly caught up on dinosaurs and gravity...
Maybe...
D&G used to be something anybody would get laughed at for talking about and it appears to have presently become a fairly safe subject. Basically, everybody who has ever actually done the math has come to the same conclusion I did. You might want to check out a few snapshots from a recent prime-timne Japanese television program dealing with the topic...
The Japanese take this one seriously. If there is going to be such a thing as controlling gravity, the nation which gets there first will have a hell of an edge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Sylas, posted 04-16-2004 1:59 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2004 2:47 AM redwolf has not replied
 Message 73 by Sylas, posted 04-16-2004 4:39 AM redwolf has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 79 (100334)
04-16-2004 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by redwolf
04-16-2004 2:20 AM


You might want to check out a few snapshots from a recent prime-timne Japanese television program dealing with the topic...
Three stills of two sararimen looking at a computer screen? That's some unrefutable proof, all right! I'm convinced!
Added by edit: oops, guess either the page didn't load completely or I didn't scroll far enough - there's a link to more pages at the bottom.
Either way, I'm not impressed. Aren't the japanese media the ones that reported that a rotting basking shark carcass was actually a pleiosaur? The japanese are crazy. I don't think it takes too much to get onto their TV.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 2:20 AM redwolf has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 73 of 79 (100347)
04-16-2004 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by redwolf
04-16-2004 2:20 AM


redwolf writes:
You might want to check out a few snapshots from a recent prime-timne Japanese television program dealing with the topic...
Oh my. Thanks for that link. Yes, that is indeed fascinating; but it deserves its own thread. I have taken the liberaty of proposing a new thread myself. The program is obviously based on Ted Holden's ideas, with which I am very familiar indeed. I think my background knowledge of Ted's ideas, combined with an insider's view of how we hidebound conventional scientists think, allows me to give a fair summary of what the program is about in terms that will be accessible to readers here.
This also lets me try out the new thread mechanism. This is not a creationism topic, but it is relevant in a way, since Ted is definitely a critic of many aspects of conventional science, and of evolutionary biology in particular.
In any case, I invite you to contribute to the thread or clarify anything you think could be improved in my summary; assuming that the moderators think it is a worthy topic....
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 2:20 AM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 11:01 AM Sylas has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 74 of 79 (100351)
04-16-2004 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by redwolf
04-15-2004 10:39 PM


quote:
But the really big problems with the idea are philosophical. Show me a scientist who can expound the big bang idea and keep his face straight, and I'll show you a man who couldn't pass the most basic sort of a philosophy or logic course. In fact I'll show you a man who needs to be horsewhipped, the idea is so flagrantly ludicrous.
You've never really seen a legitimate physicist or astronomer talking about the big bang theory have you? The whole theory is more complicated than what you described above there. And no, scientific theories do not have to subject to your logic. In fact, I don't give a rat's ass what your logic tells you.
By the way, even black holes can eventually dissipate into nothing, as explained in plain English by Stephen Hawkins in "A Brief History of Time."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by redwolf, posted 04-15-2004 10:39 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 11:06 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 75 of 79 (100377)
04-16-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Sylas
04-16-2004 4:39 AM


Do me a favor. I'm about a month or two away from having a book on the topic of D&G available for downloading; wait until that is there before starting such a topic.
To my thinking, the controversy is no longer who, between Holden, Kronia, Talbott et. al. or Throop, t.o., Ellenberger et. al. is correct, but rather whether or not you can come up with any reason to believe in an "expanding Earth" theory.
Many if not most of the web sites you see which deal with D&G are also expounding expanding Earth theories of one stripe or another and this is based not only on considerations dealing with gravity but also with the curvature of a reconstructed Pangaea, which is not the same as the Earth's present curvature.
I do not believe in Earth expanding fairies, and I do not see there being the time for any meaningful accretion to have occurred; I view the idea of expanding Earth theories as a mistake and believe in a much simpler explanation for the curvature problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Sylas, posted 04-16-2004 4:39 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2004 11:29 AM redwolf has not replied
 Message 78 by Sylas, posted 04-16-2004 1:14 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024