|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Elhardt
This may be a big shocker to some people, but there have been many who have seen him and interacted with him after dying. That would be a definite shocker given the tendency of the dead to refuse to speak.
There are a whole series of phenomena that prove the existance of God. I have heard that line before. The difficulty is the lack of presentable evidence though. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This topic is way too long to read the whole thing, but I'll throw in some interesting info. Astronomers tell us that no matter how far out into the universe they look (that means looking back in time to a younger universe), all spiral galaxies appear the same age to us, with the same amount of twist, and the same amount of development. That defies any common sense at all. There are many unexplainable things we see. Way not to cite things. Look, if "astronomers tell us" something, then some particular astronomers must tell us this, based on some particular data, which they've published in some particular place. In which case, would it kill you to tell you where? Otherwise, astronomers tell "us", nothing of the sort. They may conceivably have told you this, but they haven't told me; whereas you have told me ... but you're not an astronomer. Or they may have told you nothing of the sort. Which astronomers do you say have told you these things? Where can I read them saying it?
The universe is expanding if the redshift is doppler based. But we see redshift from the sun and we're not moving away from it. There is anomalous redshift all over the place totally confusing the picture. "We see redshift from the sun"? Who told you that? Was he an astronomer? Was he drunk?
I did see somebody mention the problem about things in the universe being older than the universe. Even the official NASA website admitted the problem. A 14 billion old universe with stars, galaxies, and dust clouds ranging from 17-19 billion years old is a problem. Apparently the way they're solving it is just hacking billions of years off the ages of things to bring them down below 14 billion years. Science did the same with the moon, by hacking 1.5 billion years off to bring it to the age of the earth to support their new theory. This is why one must take the things they say with a grain of salt. And your last piece of information, and I use the term loosely, you attribute simply to "somebody". Who? Let me guess, from the wild, implausible libels against scientists, he'd be some sort of creationist, right? Whose tatty pamphlet or ill-designed website did not itself quote and cite the scientific literature, yes? "Apparently", you say? Well, things which are "apparent" must, y'know, actually appear somewhere. Where is it "apparent" that "the way they're solving it is just hacking billions of years off the ages of things"? Where, in fact, are "they" doing this, and who are "they"? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5288 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
"We see redshift from the sun"? Who told you that? Was he an astronomer? Was he drunk? Light from the Sun is redshifted by the gravitational redshift, by the same amount as the Doppler redshift from a source receding at about 0.635 km/sec. This is tiny, but measurable. It's not an anomaly, or a scientific problem. Redshift can arise in a number of different ways; by having the source in a gravitational well, or having it move, or having space expand. Cheers -- Sylas (PS. Hi folks. It's been a long time. Just passing through, probably.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
We have missed you sir.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Light from the Sun is redshifted by the gravitational redshift ... Ah yes ... I wasn't sure what the guy was getting at, but that'll be it, won't it? And this tiny quantity is entirely predictable from the size of the relevant star, isn't it, and is well-known to astronomers, and could be factored into their calculations if it wasn't so tiny as to be negligible as compared with the redshift of distant galaxies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
And it is a significant point, I think, that it is the very same theory that not only predicts (precisely) the red-shift of the light from the sun, but also predicts that light from distant galaxies should be red-shifted in proportion to their distance from the earth -- that is, General Relativity tells us that the light from the sun should be red-shifted due to gravitational effects and that the universe is expanding.
In other words, the existence of the red-shift in solar light is actually evidence in favor of the expanding universe. Neat how this works out, isn't it? Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The universe is expanding if the redshift is doppler based. But we see redshift from the sun and we're not moving away from it. There is anomalous redshift all over the place totally confusing the picture. OK, assuming that Sylas is correct guessing that you're talking about gravitational red-shift, then this is not "anomalous", and astronomers know about it. Of course they know about it. They'd be the first people to know about it. You only know about it 'cos they observed it and told everyone. Hence, they are quite able to take its existence into account, and it does not "confuse the picture" for them, 'cos they know about it and understand it very well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I should also add:
A 14 billion old universe with stars, galaxies, and dust clouds ranging from 17-19 billion years old is a problem. I found some information on this so-called problem.
quote: As I predicted, further observations and more detailed models have resolved this discrepency. The ages of the known objects within the universe are no older than the universe itself. Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5288 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Elhardt writes:
Astronomers tell us that no matter how far out into the universe they look (that means looking back in time to a younger universe), all spiral galaxies appear the same age to us, with the same amount of twist, and the same amount of development. That defies any common sense at all. There are many unexplainable things we see. The universe is expanding if the redshift is doppler based. But we see redshift from the sun and we're not moving away from it. There is anomalous redshift all over the place totally confusing the picture. I did see somebody mention the problem about things in the universe being older than the universe. Even the official NASA website admitted the problem. A 14 billion old universe with stars, galaxies, and dust clouds ranging from 17-19 billion years old is a problem. Apparently the way they're solving it is just hacking billions of years off the ages of things to bring them down below 14 billion years. Science did the same with the moon, by hacking 1.5 billion years off to bring it to the age of the earth to support their new theory. This is why one must take the things they say with a grain of salt. I dealt with redshift from the Sun before. It is perfectly normal and not at all anomalous or confusing. On other points. The claim about things being older than the universe is out of date. This was an issue a couple of decades ago, but it is now mostly resolved. The claim about just chopping off years is completely false. And nothing like this was needed for the Moon, where dating methods worked very well at confirming the dates obtained independently from other sources. Leaving aside the nonsense about the moon, which is a fantasy, the issue with dating stars is more interesting. Up to date work on dating stars gives a useful lower bound on the age of the Universe. See Old stars reveal universe's minimum age, from Science News Online, Oct 2001. Note that there is nothing about chopping off years; this is bog standard radiometric methods. There's a lot of similar work around, all giving this kind of answer; in the right ball park and well below the 17-19 that Elhardt speaks of (without citation). You can get references for ages up as high as 20 billion years, but only by going to much older papers. If those numbers held up, there would be a serious problem. But they don't. Such ages were obtained not so much for stars, as clusters; but the methods had large error bars and lots of strong model dependencies. The solution to any perceived conflict came about quite naturally by improved modeling; not just by hacking off years. An example of a paper giving a recalibration of cluster ages to scale back earlier overestimates is The age of the oldest globular clusters (arxiv:astro-ph/9603092) in March 1996. The radiometric work that has been done in recent years has much better resolution (smaller error bars) and consistently shows the oldest stars to be just a bit younger than the universe itself; as expected. On old spiral galaxies: spirals do form very early in the universe. This is useful data for the formation of the structure of galaxies. Here is an example of a paper on galaxies in the early universe that appear mature: Glimpse At Early Universe Reveals Surprisingly Mature Galaxies. This research is not a case of having conflicting dates, but having a good model for the formation of galaxies that is consistent with observation. Work like this refutes, or falsifies, some models of how galaxies form an evolve. However, this work does not show that the early universe looks the same as the current universe. In the early universe, for example, galaxies were all much closer together. For some more recent observational work on the early universe, see Hubble Spots 500 Galaxies in Early Universe, and 'Lego-block' galaxies found in early universe. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sikosikik5 Junior Member (Idle past 5968 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
i dont know if you have heard this, but the conservation of angular momentum proves that the big bang theory did not happen.
Edited by sikosikik5, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2669 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Sik, take your comments to the appropriate thread:
Liability of the Theory that the law of Angular Momentum disproves Big bang.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I dont know if you have heard this, but the conservation of angular momentum proves that the big bang theory did not happen. Well, I have certainly heard the claim many times but it is utter tripe of course, promoted by those with no clue of physics. If someone is trying to tell you that everything in the Universe should be spinning the same way if the Big Bang is true, then they are either utterly ignorant/confused of what they are saying or they are deliberately lying. Neither is a particularly good reflection upon themselves... We do not check for conservation of angular momentum by ensuring everything is "spinning the same way" (sorry, I'm a physicist and I just have to ) Simplistically, what we do is ADD UP the rotation of every single object in the region of concern, and compare the SUM to what we had before. Let's say we start with a spacecraft sat in space with no rotation. An explosion rips the spacecraft into two identical halves. As long as these two halves have equal and opposite spins, then angular momentum has been conserved. There was zero before, and now there is J + (-J) which equals zero. If the spacecraft explodes into ten thousand fragments, each randomly spinning wildly, then you can be confident that if you actually added up the individual angular momenta of each individual piece, you would end up with a total ang mom of zero - because this is what you started with. So, if you think ang mom is an issue for the Big Bang, all you have to do is go measure the spin (ang mom) of each individual object in the entire Universe, and add them all up. And if you don't get zero, THEN FINALLY, you will have simply measured the original ang mom of the Big Bang, and there is actually nothing to say that it should be zero anyway!!! As you can now tell, whoever thought up this "problem" really had no clue as to physics whatsoever. Sad isn't it? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
i dont know if you have heard this, but the conservation of angular momentum proves that the big bang theory did not happen. We have heard this. Many of us also took the trouble to find out whether it was true. Now, here's something for you to think about. Anything you know about physics is also known to physicists. In particular, they, like you, have heard of the conservation of angular momentum, which is something they learned about in high school, and unlike you, they know exactly what it is. (See here if you have any interest in what it actually says.) So if this law conflicted in any way with the Big Bang, they'd have noticed. Wouldn't they.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
"Anything you know about physics is also known to physicists."
But they never mention the contradiction factor in their preamble. Namely that the universe is finite, thus they always talk about a post-universe scenario only - which is fine - if they said that in their preamble. Its an indispencible factor. And this would mean, the word ORIGIN and BEGINNING has to be taken out from that premise. Secondly, an external impact would have to be considered with the BBT. An explosion is triggered by an external factor, because if there was an internal reason, then this would violate the BEGINNING factor again. The latter is my main problem with the BBT. In contrast, Genesis dispences with this problem by its up-front preamble the universe is finite, and that there was a source factor of its occurence: IN THE BEGINNING GOD [Gen/1/1]. This does not require that anyone arbitrarilly accept the Creator premise, but that it is logical, imperical and non-negotiable the status of the universe being discussed be given, along with a source factor where origin and beginning is addressed. The BBT begins in a belated mid-point, with no acknowledgement of it's deficiency here. I find it amazing an ancient document like Genesis is the first introduction of the FINITE factor, and in specific context of the universe origins, and that all which is given is the B-Z, the A factor being barred and elusive: this has held today with the best of state of art science. It is amazing it is not acknowledged by atheist scientists as being so, namely the two most fulcrum factors of the universe origins is only ratified by Genesis. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
I'm sorry, is the above quote suppose to make any sense?
But they never mention the contradiction factor in their preamble. Namely that the universe is finite, thus they always talk about a post-universe scenario only - which is fine - if they said that in their preamble. Its an indispencible factor. And this would mean, the word ORIGIN and BEGINNING has to be taken out from that premise.
Secondly, an eternal impact would have to be considered with the BBT. An explosion is triggered by an external factor, because if there was an internal reason, then this would violate the BEGINNING factor again. The latter is my main problem with the BBT.
How many millions of times we have to say this before creationists hear it? The BB wasn't an explosion. It was a rapid expansion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024