|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jackal5096 Inactive Member |
quote: While a number of predictions of Arp's plasma universe have been refuted, what is becoming increasingly interesting is the so-called "cosmic axis of evil", first noted with the WMAP CMB analyses, in which the quadrapole and octapole anisotropies in the CMB appear to be aligned with the Milky Way axis. Since then, the polarizations of the light from quasars and the axis of many other spiral galaxies also seemed to be alighed with this cosmic axis of evil. One recent paper poses an explanation for this apparent cosmic axis as a pan-universal magnetic field. Hmm, where've I heard that before, Halton?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
jackal5096 writes: While a number of predictions of Arp's plasma universe... Arp's plasma universe? Are you perhaps thinking of Hannes Alfvén? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If that were so, why do so many astronomers brag about using gravitational lensing to see behind a galaxy? What's important is not that they're seeing behind a glaxy, but that they're seeing gravitational lensing. This is what they're bragging about.
For example, in this NASA photo NASA claims that a single quasar, located behind the galaxy, appears four times, in four quadrants, around the galaxy in front of it, due to gravitational lensing. Yet, the quasar is not directly visible through the galaxy. I guess that would be due to gravitational lensing. The point of gravitational lensing is that you see things where they aren't, not where they are. --- NB: I should think you probably can't see through the center of a galaxy, but I'm just guessing. But a lot of any galaxy will be empty space.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jackal5096 Inactive Member |
quote: Oops, you're right. I was actually thinking of Alfven. Or maybe Eric Lerner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jackal5096 Inactive Member |
quote: But the point was that the use of gravitational lensing showed that there was a quasar present behind the galaxy, that wasn't visible looking through the galaxy, contrary to the post to which I responded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5191 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
This video does a profound job in helping to present the many flaws that exist against the Big Bang. I would watch in in Broadband version.
A Question of Origins In fact, you can watch a ton of videos for free:Free Online Creation Science Videos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Could we have something in writing, please?
I suffer from acute and almost life-long literacy, and frankly I'm not sure that video is the best format for a "profound" discussion of quantum mechanics and general relativity --- I take it that's what it contains? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
quote: Lensing of the kind you refer to only occurs with precise alignment and distant, massive galaxies or galaxy clusters, (and even more distant quasars), and are one proof of the vast distance of quasars. These are by far the exception, due to the large masses and precise alignment necessary for noticeable effects. Nearby and/or less massive galaxies, and poor alignment between us/the galaxy/the quasar, will have at best much less obvious effects that are not apparent in the vast majority of cases. Consider:
quote: (from this pdf.) Why aren't these galaxies being "lensed" by the closer M101? Because detectable lensing is by far the exception, not the rule. Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I watched the first ten mins. The first 5 are harmless enough in attempting to give a simplistic and only somewhat wrong idea of the big bang.
After that it falls apart into typical nonsense and equivocates on "evolve" and so on. It doesn't seem to be worth wasting any more time watching. Perhaps the poster can, as you suggest, pull the actual argument out and present it. Early indications are that the video does't have any real meat to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Lysimachus,
Normal procedure here at EvC forum has you making your rebuttal in your own words and using links only as supporting references. Links are not supposed to be your sole contribution. But I took a quick look at your video anyway. While it's very general, the first 2 minutes does a great job countering the common creationist misconception that planets and stars formed as a direct result of the Big Bang. It explains that first atoms and molecules formed, and then only much later did stars and galaxies form. The video quickly makes some of very common and very fundamental creationist mistakes. At one point the narrator says, "We begin where evolutionists say it all began, with the Big Bang." As hopefully everyone who has been here at EvC for a while is well aware, the Big Bang is a theory of cosmological origins, not of biological origins, and the theory of evolution is a theory of the origins of species of life, not of life itself. The theory of the origin of life is different theory usually known as abiogenesis. Referring to the Big Bang as an evolutionist theory is just misleading, and I'm sure the talent behind this video is well aware of distinctions like these. All of those who comment about the Big Bang don't show any indication of any familiarity with scientific views of the Big Bang. It's as if they saw the term "Big Bang" and took a guess at what something called the "Big Bang" must be. Given that the term was coined by an opponent of Big Bang theory (Fred Hoyle), it's no wonder the term brings the wrong image to mind among laypeople. I think the video would have been much better served by including contributions from people who actually know what the theory says. I'm only 10 minutes into the video so far, it already has a number of errors, it's an hour in length, and I don't have any idea which portions of the video contain the points you want to make. If there is some specific issue or issues from the video that you would like to raise, please describe them in your own words and provide the point in time in the video where the issue is described. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jackal5096 Inactive Member |
quote:So what? How does that determine whether a more distant quasar can be seen through a galaxy. Even with perfectly aligned lensing being "the exception", in this case it provided a rare opportunity to show that a quasar is present behind a galaxy without being visible directly through the galaxy. quote: This looks like little more than a red herring. The Hubble photos of the pinwheel galaxy are, as it states, of the thin disk. In contrast, the quasar aligned with NGC 7319 is aligned with the central core of that galaxy, which is much thicker and much more opaque, making it less likely the quasar is behind the galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
The quasar is not shining through "the core" of the galaxy. Photos typically over-expose bright portions of the disk; the "core" is far smaller than is apparent in typical photographs.
Go to this photo of Stephen's Quintet, and look at NGC 7319 in the upper left corner. This photo is less over-exposed than many. Notice the small, circular area in the center of the galaxy? That's the maximum extent of the truly dense "core" of the galaxy (and is likely over-estimating). The opaque portion of a typical spiral galaxy is really quite small in relation to the total disk. In this photo, I think the quasar is barely visible directly beneath the core, if you know where to look, but it's hard to tell. At any rate, comparing to other photographs, it's easy to tell it is well clear of the densest part of the core. Nor is the galaxy either far away nor massive enough to produce gravitational lensing, so we should not expect to see lensing here. There's no problem. Added by edit: Looking around for this, I've noticed several other quasars sighted "on" galaxy images, and it seems in every case the quasars show absorption lines in their spectra consistent with their light passing through the galaxy in question (e.g. NGC891, NGC4203). They're never in front of the galaxy. Again, based on this information alone, one could still say they are in galaxies, but we have plenty of other reasons to say they are more distant. Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given. Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TyberiusMax Member (Idle past 5999 days) Posts: 39 Joined: |
This is not to prove a God exists, because how can you when Belief in a God requires faith, and faith is not science
Neither does it confuse with a circular argument.This does not argue with biblical ideas or intelligent design but with a simple question of a very simple SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM with "No Creator Creation." The question is based on the raw existence of the universe, and how is it possible that we existThe simple question is... In a Universe where there is no God and no one believes in a God which created all, how did raw existence come about? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAW OF MATTER: Matter exists physically and exists as energy Matter is what EVERYTHING is made out of... Matter cannot be created nor destroyed... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This means matter or energy must already be existent for SOMETHING to happen since the happening cannot be matter or energy becoming existent from “Nothing” This means even before ANY CREATION THEORY (Big bang ‘Evolution)...there must have been matter or energy in order for something else to be created or happen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Infinite Universe: The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old because that would mean that matter or energy has been here foreverBut where did that matter or energy come from, since it cannot be created. Did it just appear out of nothing!?!? Yet we know "pure nothing" cannot exist, there is always matter or energy, and that if there is matter or energy where did this matter or energy come from? Also:I quote Professor Paul Davies "One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, and that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was. It was just copied from earlier versions." So infinity does not work. Finite Universe: Others say everything that is now, is from the big bang, and the universe does have a beginningBut then how did the Big Bang, Bang? The Big bang could not happen without something there (hydrogen or particles or plainly ENERGY). Therefore, if that matter or energy is there to create the Bang; something is existing before the Big Bang. Even a virtual particle must have energy in order for it to "happen". We therefore are confronted with the question of how this energy came about. Yet, again, since new matter or energy cannot be made made let alone be made from NOTHING, how is this possibleQuantum Physics: After all that is said one could be convinced that maybe existence did come about spontaneously Quantum Physics particles of matter can actually appear from simply nothing: The problem is these appearances are happening in existence. It has nothing to do with "pure nothing." We can only operate in existence Here in lies the problem We are in existence. "Thanks for telling us that Einstein" Quantum physics and events that we see occur are obviously happening, in existence. "OK" So that means, The spontaneity of particles that we see appear out of nothing cannot be called actual "pure nothing", because the particles are appearing in an already existent world How can we say that particles can spontaneously appear out of actual "pure nothing" if in reality we are seeing our supposed "spontaneity" in existence? We cannot. We are bound by existence and therefore it can never be known what created existence since everything we know and don't know, even Quantum Physics, is bound by existence. This all boils down to the fact that:It may sound ludicrous, but it is totally sound that you cannot use anything from existence in order to explain how existence came to be. This is because of the simple fact that anything in existence was made when existence came to be and therefore could not be the tool used to create its own maker. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is impossible to escape the fact of (cause ----> effect)Otherwise it would be (nothing ------> effect) But once again as stated, nothing cannot make an effect. People then ignorantly argue back to the beginning and start the question all over againWhat about (Big Bang -----> effect) This is a preposterous answer for the question because all statements above go against this saying the Big Bang cannot happen from nothing because "nothing" cannot exist and therefore the Big Bang would have a cause" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This leads to two conclusions neither being possible (In our minds): There is no actual answer, yet, to how the universe "happened."That would mean a person still has a choice and is free to get down to the simple answer of existence: "I believe the universe is either finite or infinite. The universe simply exists."The universe simply exists. It is not finite or infinite.‘(Illogical since it must be one of them because we are here) This belief comes short. We have already learned how an infinite universe is impossible, and to believe in one would require faith. So therefore the only other answer would be finite, but that leads us back to the beginning of the argument, if the universe is finite. Then what created it? Or "I believe in a God outside of existence who created me." (Something we cannot conceive but some believe with faith. Faith is not scientific. It is simply believing without seeing. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Either one can be an answer true? Just as you can't yet explain how the universe simply exists, you cannot prove there is no God because you cannot yet prove there is a God. At present moment both believe there idea to be true. It’s the same as before an experiment.Two people have a hypothesis as to what the answer will be. There WILL be only one answer and it might not be what either thought, but as of now our experiment is not done yet and the two hypotheses stand. ===================================================================== By sayingI have faith in the flying spaghetti monster. He created the entire universe last Thursday, with the appearance of age including all of you memories, beginning with a midget on a hill. You can't argue with it because it can't be proven or disproven. You are using my second possibility, you are saying there is a God, in the form of a spagetti monster.I cannot argue with it, there is no way to Why, because it is your BELIEF In the same way I cannot explain my God and his existence, most christians do say this. They believe his actual existence is beyond our abilities to understand.They also believe their God is personal, and loves them. THIS IS A FAITH THOUGH (WHY AM I NOT ADDING NEW STUFF TO THIS, BECAUSE YOU STILL FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT FAITH IS) Faith is believing without seeingit cannot be prov3en or disproven I cannot explain how the universe came to be This leads right back to what I must repeat.Since,as of yet, science cannot explain existence, The explaination "The universe just simply exists" cannot be a logical answer either. Because that doesn't explain anything. it is truly a "belief" "This is the science section of the forum."Faith is not science That is why there is no arguing it. Edited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given. Edited by TyberiusMax, : Spelling Error Edited by TyberiusMax, : never been good at spelling Edited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EighteenDelta Inactive Member |
We will start this point by point, if I miss any I, or someone else with come back and fill in...
TyberiusMax writes: Matter is what EVERYTHING is made out of... Patently incorrect. ANTI-MATTER also exists, anti-matter also composes part of EVERYTHING. Everything that follows is pointless, but I will continue.
TyberiusMax writes: This means matter must already be SOMEWHERE for SOMETHING to happenThis means even before ANY CREATION THEORY(Big bang, Evolution)...there must have been matter in order for something else to be created or happen Lets examine virtual particles for the sake of this discussion.
The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24)
These virtual particle didn't always exist in some place. They are produced.
TyberiusMax writes: The first "Anything(atom,quark,matter)" came out of nothing, therefore, matter can not only be made, but also can be made out of nothing. The problem with this is, there is no 'first particle' instead there was likely the first pair of particles. One of matter and the other of antimatter. Which then likely recombined and annihilated each other. This idea doesn't require any sum total energy or matter being created from nothing since they are opposites in charge, spin, properties (generally). Their sum total canceling out to zero.
TyberiusMax writes: 1)Here we have matter, we know matter and its properties, we know it's lawsYet we say... The first "Anything(atom,quark,matter)" came out of nothing, therefore, matter can not only be made, but also can be made out of nothing. 2)He we have a God a "Matter Creator", we don't know Gods properties, we don't know his lawsAnd we say... There is a Being or Something who is outside all boundaries of LAWS and NATURE and TIME, and created all we know and do not know. This is a false dichotomy and a poor one at that, added to that is the straw man over simplification of big bang theory. Also god is conveniently placed "outside all boundaries of LAWS and NATURE and TIME". (whatever that is supposed to mean) The false dichotomy stems from the idea that there can only be two options to choose from and you get to choose which two options we get to choose from, then you choose an option that misrepresents the scientific consensus on the big bang as one of the two options. Do you see the problem yet? "Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!" -Stephen Jay Gould
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TyberiusMax Member (Idle past 5999 days) Posts: 39 Joined: |
Yes, I left out anti-matter, ok
But you ignore the simple truth... it is a LAW: something cannot come from "pure nothing"(please tell me you believe this) Going all the way back to the beginning of time, space, and everything. what happened to make something out of nothing. The smallest you could say is that there were two particles of anti-matter and matter. but then you ignore the simplicity again, how were those made. not even a quark(or smaller!) could be made with out something making it. It cannot be said that something was there to begin it all. It is impossible. Because anything that is there is existence and therefore had to be made at sometime. The only logical reasoning is that something is outside of existence(Matter,Anti-Matter, Laws,Time,Everything) and created existance. Anything else goes against logic Edited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024